So, I’ve debated this myself. I often read and recently started commenting on posts. I find that the experience varies from site to site. I only visit ZDNET now because of the comments section.
I’m often put off when a site closes the comment sections. I don’t personally have a large Twitter following or even care to use it and 140 characters is just not enough. I thing MG might be a little out of touch (and I like MG).
I do like GigaOM’s approach to comments. The full integration with wordpress.com gives me the ability to know more about my fellow commenters and I have the option of re-blogging or just commenting. I’m finding the overall experience pretty rich.
Originally posted on Gigaom:
If you spend long enough reading blogs — or even newspapers, for that matter — you will eventually come across an essay about how a site is struggling with the question of whether to allow comments, or has decided to shut them down. The latest example of this genre comes from former Gawker Media and Wired staffer Joel Johnson, now managing editor of an arts and culture site called Animal New York, who says comments are worthless because they are filled with garbage and hardly anyone reads them anyway. As tempting as this conclusion may be, I still believe it is wrong for a number of reasons, as I have tried to point out in the past.
In his post, Johnson says he is revamping the Animal New York website and thinking hard about whether to have comments. He argues that comments used to be a worthwhile thing because they built a sense of community and created a “sort of virtual street team to share your stories with friends,” but Twitter and Facebook have made the sharing of content easier than ever. The other rationale for having comments, he says, is that they help drive engagement, which causes readers to return more frequently — and all of that is good for pageview metrics and other things of interest to advertisers: