Thoughts On The Silent Majority
Dean
Ron Coleman muses on an interesting question: Why are most internet readers silent?
This is a subject I've been contemplating for decades, from back in the days when I was a professional sysop on the old GEnie network, wherein we had thousands of daily readers on our RoundTable (GEnie's word for "forum") and I discovered from the user statistics that people who left messages in the "bulletin board" were outnumbered by at least 10:1 by people who actually read it.
When I started looking at the Dean's World reader statistics some five years ago, I was unsurprised to notice a similar pattern: readers always vastly outnumbered commenters. Always.
In fact, 10:1 is probably very conservative for the blogosphere.
Once you realize that this is simply a truism, and unlikely to change, it changes your attitude about blogging, and much else.
The reality behind this is visible every time you're in a business meeting with more than three or four people. What do you see in such meetings? A few people do most of the talking, a few others offer a few brief comments, and most others remain entirely silent unless directly prodded--and then they (usually) say as little as possible, although sometimes they change the entire conversation when they do so.
Some are afraid to be made fools of, or aren't sure what they think, or think you can learn more by listening than by talking. So they just sit and listen.
Now amplify it online: many people, even bright and talented people, just plain hate writing. Or they're insecure. Plus they see what really goes on: if you stick your neck out then people will often swing swords at it.
Writing is an act of leadership in such an environment. It may not seem like it, but it is.
I see it every day on Dean's World. I get emails constantly from people who don't want to leave a public comment but want to tell me privately what they think, or who want to share something with me but don't want to leave a public comment. I even have ex-bloggers--people who quit because they didn't want to do it anymore--email me regularly with their comments and with suggested links. Or from people who maintain a blog, but refuse to put anything controversial on it because they'd rather pass it to me quietly.
It's where half my links come from.
Here's the truth:
Blogging on controversial issues is an exercise in arrogance and occasionally self-indulgence. It is also an exercise in leadership. Both are basically the same thing.
If you're a blogger and you don't recognize that both assertions are true, then you're being at least a little foolish and/or naive.
The same is true of commenters. Commenters are truly invaluable to the good blogger. If you use them as an exercise in self-aggrandizement, then, you're just mentally masturbating on your front page. But if you look upon them as people who provide a necessary foil and a very necessary check on your own arrogance, then, they are invaluable.
But they, too, are being arrogant. They presume to take a public stance in opposition, or in support. And they, too, will always be a minority. They're willing to speak up. They're leaders too.
As another exercise in self-aggrandizement, I'll tell you what my philosophy toward commenters on Dean's World is, and has been for a long time:
I have no interest in sycophants, and I also have no interest in bloviators who seek to turn every conversation to their pet peeves--including my own shortcomings, which are manifold but not an appropriate subject for every conversation. Unlike other blogs, I want the Dean's World comments to be constantly challenging and interesting. I've worked hard to establish that. In my own imperfect way.
As Tyrone has said, if you come here, you'd best come correct. Meaning: if you're going to use up our precious time with your words, you'd better have something to say that's worth reading. Even if it's just funny or silly.
That's my arrogance.
But Dean's World had a bit over 32,000 visits on Sunday, out of 10,800 unique IP addresses. And only a handful of commenters. But almost all of those comments were worth reading.
I don't care how many comments get left, and assign no great significance to a thread that has zero comments. So what? Tons of people are reading, and benefiting from it. Even if the benefit is just to laugh, or determine that they disagree.
Dean's World could become like Tim Blair or Little Green Footballs or Daily Kos or Firedog Lake: every thread with dozens or hundreds of comments, most of them not worth the time to read.
I don't want that, so I do it differently. I don't care if an entire day goes by with no comments. The really good commenters will say something when they have something interesting to say.
When you first start a new blog, you want commenters. You thirst for them. Why wouldn't you? You--being an arrogant person in many ways--thirst for the validation of having someone answer you. Just getting an answer assures you that yes, someone is at least reading and thinking about what you wrote.
Then, if you keep going and develop an audience--and you will develop an audience if you keep writing regularly--you reach another point, where growth continues and you realize you actually want a decent conversation. Or you just want sycophants and constant validation. Or you let the constant nattering and criticism destroy you, which is what did the great Steven Den Beste in. Anyway, you make a choice:
1) Shut the comments down (like Instapundit did) and stop paying attention to most of the emails
2) Let the comments become chaos
3) Quit
4) Shepherd the comments and just deal with the fact that a lot of people seem to hate you
I see no other choices. #4 is the most demanding, which is why few choose it.
I mostly find it worth it, even if it makes me crazy sometimes, and I sometimes (usually?) fail in my best aspirations and lose my temper. In fact, losing my temper is probably my most chronic shortcoming.
But remember it always: when you blog on controversial issues, you're being arrogant, and you're being a leader. Both are always true. And if you keep writing, and keep writing well, the readers will come.
It may also make you a little (or a lot) crazy sometimes. That's your price of admission: you asked for it, bubbula.
The silent majority just sits and watches. They have their own lives and their own concerns, and you're just a small part of it at best.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Thoughts On The Silent Majority
- You silent majority
Speaking only for myself, I try to avoid “drive-bys”. That is, I will often refrain from commenting on a post, especially if my opinion might be controversial, unless I have the time to stick around to defend and clarify the comment. Most days I do not.
I hate to throw up a comment, then come back a day later and see that my comment caused a thread to go to hell, mostly because I was not around to clarify my original comment. I don’t think that has happened here, but it has at other blogs.
I'm not dead yet, after 5 years, so I think it's working.
Here's another overlooked point, regarding readers: sometimes a reader simply has nothing to say. The post may clearly state the case one way or another such that the reader is content with agreeing silently, or agreeing to disagree.
And perhaps that concept of "clearly stating" something, actually rebuts your view about commenting. While I get excited over comments, and sometimes peek anxiously to see if someone has something to say, I don't think I'm never looking for praise. What I'm looking to see is what else needs to be said - what holes someone has to poke in my ideas.
Obviously, you screwed up, because you made me comment.
I think he probably gets that a lot.
I agree, I hate doing that, however I do it anyway. My personal and work schedule will simply not let me stick around for long periods of time on the internet unless I am off-assignment, have a day-off, or have time for some other reason.
Therefore I try to eave posts, when I do, that are as "full" and detailed a comment as I can, given the issue, so I leave less room for misunderstanding or having to restate myself later on.
Words being what they are however the chances of not being misunderstood, to some degree at least, is slight, so I just go ahead and do it anyway knowing somebody will get it and somebody won't. The same thing happens in conversation, and I think that is part of operational nature of leadership, as Dean says. Saying what you're gonna, knowing somebody is gonna understand you, and somebody is not, and you don't give a crap anyway (once you get old enough) if you figure it might be important enough to say. That is to say, a leader says this or that and doesn't always have time to discuss his motivations or reasons, he then has other business to move onto. Usually something more important. He's not in the explaining and re-explaining business, he's in the getting things done business. Then again I've known plenty of leaders and commanders who would never comment on a board or blog because they consider it a waste of their time, and so do I sometimes, at others, not so much. You have leaders who are "let's keep this as simple and brief as possible" and let everybody else figure it out as they go (it's either their problem or I trust them enough to trust their judgment in executing this), and leaders who don't like not being direct and clear, thinking it is their responsibility to avoid screw-ups, since they are after all, leading.
But back to the real issue - I'm with you, generally speaking, I hate leaving a comment on Monday and then seeing someone address me directly by name and not being able to respond until a week later. But I never know when I'll be called up for something or will be elsewhere so, C'est la vie.
But if I can I will scan old posts and try to respond just to let the other fella or the gal know I did respond and wasn't just trying to either ditch them or ignore them. That may be why some people don't respond, they feel like you they can't get into a long running episode and unlike me they figure it would be impolite not to. I don't think it's polite to ignore somebody who has directly called your name, but it isn't always possible to respond when they wish you could (or you wish you could) and so I hope they understand anyway. Nothing against them, just I have to be gone. Or at something else.
In any case I think Dean made an interesting analysis overall.
Anyway, gotta go.
One that he's mentioned and hasn't turned up yet is that those who read and respond to the comments on Deans World usually include the author of the post in the first place. Other commentators here tend to stick around to defend their positions as well.
I, as a reader, enjoy seeing that debate between the original author and the 'opposition' play out, as it leaves behind a much more coherent picture of the issue then the post by itself.
That said, like Aziz, I'd be interested in any empirical data that's out there, especially on how many accounts sign up and never comment and how many commentators are one message wonders.
The point of my original post, really, was that I crave the conversation and the community. I also like to know who's reading the blog!
I myself have never wanted to be a leader in anything. Not out of fear, but out of contempt for the bureacracy, backstabbing amd petty shit I would have to endure. I realized long ago that my role was a foot soldier just like 99.999% of America; blisters on my fingers, dirt, grime and grease on my skin. That's where it is.
I don't want to be known to the general public, I don't want to be heard by the general public. That is reserved for my family and circle of friends and associates. I want to be anonymous; we are the people who keep the cultural, and economic engine of America running. It's not the stupid politicans, it's not the demagogues like Sharpton, Reid and Pelosi.
I guess I'm a Jacksonian to the core, with a mix of Wilsonian idealism to help the masses of the anonymous around the world.
The same rings true in regards to comments. I read the blogs (including Deans World and Colemans new piece) to get information about current events. I read comments often for shits and grins, but to actually comment? No way.
To date, this is probably my third comment on this site (I've been registered for over a year, but all three comments have occurred within the last month); and I commented to Coleman's same question on his site. After today, I'm back to the silent masses where I belong.
Rest easy, gentlemen, there's no mystery, no quandry, nothing to ponder....it just is. It always will be. Leave the pondering over such things to the Europeans and liberals who will never be wise enough to understand that shit just happens.
This comment intentionally left blank.
I know I am definitely not your typical reader or commenter. I am female and 70, too old for most people who read or comment here to fathom. I now use age and experience as a prop to MAKE people listen, but truth be known, I have been opinionated and thought I knew best all my life. In high school I campaigned for Adlai Stevenson, I now am firmly behind GWB - I like to think I grew up. Maybe I did, but I know many of my beliefs changed, or the party they were in changed.
I was brought up to believe only cripples and the mentally handicapped would stoop to take a handout. Now many people think it is their right. I did not come from a well off family, I grew up in a poor family of seven children. We had food and clothes, but we worked hard for what we had. We also shared with those in need, the gov't didn't have to. What is considered the poverty level now is much, much higher than most folks in my home town was in the 50's.
I feel like I live in a surreal world when I see all the anti Americanism from AMERICANS! I've thought of starting my own blog, but right now I'm totally dispirited with the American people, and/or media. What if the majority really think like the media and many, many schoolteacher do? It's not my country anymore and it's what is left for my grandchildren.
Of course, if I really felt there were no turning back from our turn toward socialism I wouldn't bother to read or write anything, anytime.
So, Dean, have I answered your question?
;D Ruth
An example is one thread Jeff Goldstein had last week on the Duke case. The discussion went into the difference between 'intent' and 'motive'. I'm an attorney, I've worked in the criminal courts, and that distinction is crucial. So I spent a lot of time as 'Mikey NTH' going into that and touching on the rules of evidence.
1. It was a professional subject I had knowledge on.
2. There is a crucial distinction between the two in the criminal law and it is a difficult hump for first year law students to get over.
3. I had the time.
4. The bulk of the commenters there are, like here, informed and intelligent and curious so it was worth the effort.
Those considerations also affect my commenting at places.
Now, if you want to talk batleships, or any kind of ship - sweetheart, I'm your man!
Unless you've got a better idea?
Powerblogs development is dead and Chris Lansdown seems in no hurry to open source it.
First, there are levels of comfort within the web directly related to computer aptitude and experience. Those who are "in the know", such as programmers and designers and writers, are at the top of the food chain. They know all about the world the blog lives in, which gives them an edge over the layperson. They will blog faster, more often and with more authority than the average Joe. Joe is still learning how to drag and drop and has no idea how to even link his fact to it's source, should he even dare post it. There should be a Blogging For Dummies website with a tutorial that walks you through all the shortcuts and hints and etiquette.
Second, a blog is a community. As with any community, newcomers tend to feel a bit awkward at first, so they adopt a "wait and see" attitude. It's a bit like going to a party where you don't know anyone. You do the wallflower thing, waiting for the right moment to speak. It's all about credibility, after all. If nobody knows you or your credentials, why would they pay any attention to your thoughts on a given topic (the newbie reasons). For some, the wait-and-see period is extensive. For others, gregariousness and ego prevail over the case of newbie nerves and comments are forthcoming more readily.
Third, some are there to learn. I rarely comment on the situation overseas. I am woefully uneducated in this area. Part of the reason I joined this list was to bring myself up to speed. Sure, I can watch the news and read the papers and the network internet articles, but that's just swallowing what someone else wants me to eat. Nah, I need more in my diet. I'll listen to people, thanks, and hear about things that the governments and media don't want to tell people.
Fourth, there's the whole aggressive, chest-beating "I have spoken and challenge you to step over this line" attitude that some people adopt when posting, as in this line, posted by Dean: If you're a blogger and you don't recognize that both assertions are true, then you're being at least a little foolish and/or naive.
It can take an otherwise inviting subject and cause the less aggressive personality to clam up, being not at all interested in crossing anyone's line of battle simply to pass on an opinion to a stranger. Statements like the above might discourage the newcomer or "quiet type" from posting. The list owner has already boxed the topic neatly, assuring us that Right Thinking people will agree with his words. Wrong Thinking people who disagree are foolish and naive. For some, there has to be a lot more at stake to take a battle stance against a stranger.
Here's another example:
As Tyrone has said, if you come here, you'd best come correct. Meaning: if you're going to use up our precious time with your words, you'd better have something to say that's worth reading. Even if it's just funny or silly.
What might be "worth reading" to some can be garbage to others. The bigger the ego, the less you find "worthy" in the thoughts of smaller beings.
Fifth, think of the classroom atmosphere. There is the teacher, who has all the answers, and his 20 or more students, who are there to learn. If there were 20 teachers standing in front of a class of 1, it would be difficult to glean anything at all from the day's lesson. It's nice when people know when to NOT speak on a subject. It saves having to tune them out in order to hear the one who deserves to be heard.
To me, frequent posting does not automatically indicate leadership, although sometimes a person clearly is a leader. I think the one thing frequent posting always indicates is the presence of a large Ego. There is that desire to be heard, to be recognized, to be known by others outside your home world that motivates the egotist. People who are leaders almost always have a big ego - it is necessary to support the job of leading. But people with big egos are rarely true leaders, in my experience, because true leaders are rare. Egotists talk louder, are brasher, flashier, more noticable, but what they are saying is not always right. In fact, it is often so incredibly wrong that in retrospect history will ask "what were those people thinking, to have listened to him?".
Charles Manson comes to mind. If he had free access to the internet, he would post on a blog fast and often, I'll bet you. Although he has followers, he's hardly what I consider a leader. At least, not one I can respect. I can think of lots of people with big egos who were thought of as leaders, only to be proven later to be mentally unsound (at the least), dangerous, cruel, selfish, destructive, and worse. So I disagree that being a frequent poster carries a common denominator of leadership. Just "being willing to speak up" doesn't make you a leader, nor does commenting on a controversial issue qualify as "an exercise in leadership". Not without a lot more qualifications, in my opinion. The only automatic star those commentors get from me is for Ego, until they prove their more admirable attributes.
I'm maybe a bit picky about who I recognize as a leader. I've known more than a few windbags who flew to the top of the ladder with their so-called "leadership qualities", only to fall to disgrace when their true colors flew when faced with adversity.
But then, opinions are all about personal experience, aren't they? My opinion, happily, can be mine alone. Nobody has to ape it as a requirement for my approval. It's good to be an American.
Linda
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.