News-Record.com

testing

Sitting down. Shutting up. Please consult with Mark and announce when we are permitted to comment again.

A reasonable idea -- creating a thread for people who haven't yet commented -- marred by obnoxious phrasing ("shut up") that was probably intended to sound snappy, not jerky.

Pehraps there's a lesson in there that might be applied to the subject at hand.

I guess I'll shut up now.

Point taken. Who knew this group would be so sensitive? Or perhaps they are just poking fun.

Ask or ban those who have weighed in already from commenting. Just have them take a seat. The rule can be pretty simple: if you've commented on either of the two prior threads, sit down and shut up.* Mark

Count me out! Like typical defenders of free speech, the first thing the freedom speech fighters do is form a democrative committee to define the free speech issue and who is invited to the forum of ideas. That is like a pack of wolves inviting a lamb to the dinner table to decide what the Menu will be in the name of democracy.

Besides JR you have never define what civilzation you are saving? Are you writing about a highly techical fascist civilzation,where the toliets flush on command or simply a western civilzation where Sheriffs decide what the rule of law means to cowboys and lynch mobs?

Just to clarify:

The idea here was not to be offensive, stand-offish, or censor like.

But I was (and still am) laboring under an assumption that there may be people who have been reading the threads who haven't weighed in. They might want to have their say and might have a unique take we haven't heard yet.

But they also could be a bit shy after reading the robust but sometimes less-than-delicate comments of the folks who have been active participants in this discussion and others. All of that could be one big, lousy assumption, but it's worth testing the hypothesis.

It seems to me, and this is one guys opinion, that if a key power of blogs and other web 2.0 applications is to connect people of divergent opinions, the bigger trees in the forest need to give some light and air to the saplings.

And no, I have not commented in either of the two prior threads so I'm not breaking my own proposed rule.

I'm sorry if the suggestion, or how it was phrased, offended anyone's sensibilities. And, yes, I'm still hoping this thread might prompt someone new to take the plunge into the conversation.

It seems to me, and this is one guys opinion, that if a key power of blogs and other web 2.0 applications is to connect people of divergent opinions,* Mark

I don't know where you got this thing about divergent opinions and being connected by it. But in the real world, this usually leads to a divore or Nations going to war against each other in the name of religion.

The two comments idea sounds great- as long as I can always get the last word.

Seriously, that would only work if we also banned the repetitious pile on. It isn't fair to limit a person to two comments if 10 people jump on them over 10 different things. People have an inherent desire to defend themselves in the face of such an onslaught.

Seriously, that would only work if we also banned the repetitious pile on. It isn't fair to limit a person to two comments if 10 people jump on them over 10 different things. People have an inherent desire to defend themselves in the face of such an onslaught.* Samuel Spagnola

Who cares? That is what forums are for! There are millions of them out there on the internet and most don't last very long when the controling authority decides who is addicted or not. You just don't get it do you? It's really not that important where everybody becomes God on the internet.

Do something important with your life, feed or work in a homeless shelter or go to Iraq and help load up our troops and bring them home.

I don't know much about anything...

But, I would encourage you to name more of your blogs differently. They are too "hip" and not descriptive enough. What does "Unbuttoned" MEAN? Why not just call it The Dating Scene?

I'm also glad to see the end of the food blog (Mel's Kitchen) not because I dislike her, but because it was such a dubious notion of a blog to start with. I predicted it would get little or no traffic A LONG time ago -- and low and behold I was right. Same about the weirdly named music blog named after a garbage can... but it went away because the guy quit your company, I think...

I would encourage you to take a cue from Lex' personal blog and have him quit his N&R blogging also.

While he could be credited/blamed for igniting the blog hype at the N&R, he is far more of a liability for the tone of your blogs overall (a turnoff) than someone who makes mainstream people want to come here and share their thoughts.

And, consider this as one more thing: think about areas of your site that are the most popular and blog about those things. Crime stories always do well, right? Why not a crime and safety blog full of safety tips, Crimestoppers releases and tidbits interesting, but not big enough to make the newspaper. Tell the stories behind the stories...

What other topics do people like online and to talk about in life? Blog about that... Growth and development? What is being built around town? Each college gets its own blog? A blog about social notes like debutante balls and black tie fundraisers?

By the way, I would do what you would no doubt consider a favor and no longer ever post here again (consider it sort of a truce) if Lex was gone as a blogger (at least with an individual blog). I would consider my job done to see the demise of his one-sided, mean-spirited and often inaccurate view of the world powered through the News & Record's site.

In summary, go more mainstream and less argumentative overall you'll get more people looking at your blogs... You'll get more flies with honey... or whatever the saying is...

I'm sure my post here is mean in some way and offends someone somehow. I don't mean to do that -- I just want to keep it real. (Of course, I tell you overall to be less sharp-edged and then turn out to be just that... Sorry.)

But, I am for real with my "truce" offer....

Peace out...

Jim, you make some excellent points. While I'm not ready to "quit" as a quid pro quo if Lex ceases to blog here, I believe, as you do, that he has become a large liability for the credibility of the N&R.
Whenever the subject of local blogging comes up among my friends the negative comments about Lex are at the forefront.
I'm somewhat dazed by the proliferation of N&R blogs. I read a couple, but the rest are somewhat confusing, even the names don't tell me what they're about. So I ignore them, by and large.
I'm sure JR could analyze the online N&R stories which get the most "hits" and use that as a guide to what interests readers and might interest bloggers. As it is, an interesting subject such as the Chief Wray story winds up being discussed on two or three separate N&R blogs, all with the same contributors. There could be a way to consolidate subjects such as that for a more cohesive discussion.
Sorry about the length, I'm just throwing out thoughts here sorta willy-nilly.

You guys really should let the Lex hatred go. It'd be better for your hearts. He hasn't written much about politics since April and has had one blog post since June. That's purposeful. His role has changed.

Our blogs are like the paper in one way: we offer a variety of topics where we have some expertise. We don't expect everyone to read and enjoy every topic. We expect people to pick and choose. Mel's Kitchen wasn't dropped because of a lack of interest. It routinely ranked in the middle of the pack in traffic. It was dropped because Mel got tired of writing it.

Can we do more blogs? Yes, but only with people who want to do them and will do them well. And only on topics where we can add some value. I don't have anyone who has immediate expertise in the debutante/social crowd. Pretty sure I can't offer any value there and positive I don't want to spend limited resources there. We could create a blog for all seven colleges in Guilford County, but I don't have anyone who can oversee it.