Peter Kim featured on his blog a guest post from Kate Niederhoffer. He said:
I understand the intent of trying to direct attention and interactivity to a specific, alternative location or person, but the inherent friction and publisher control is a problem, and a big flaw, with first-generation comment systems.
Here’s why: I granted Peter my attention, something that is scarce. To force me to go somewhere else and deal with extra clicks, another interface (Kate’s blog) and additional cognition creates a lot of friction. It thwarts my continued participation. I ought to be able to leave a comment on Pete’s blog, where I happen to be, and have it syndicate on Kate’s blog as well. Furthermore, I ought to have ownership over my own disparate, published comments, and manage them in a centralized database. And when someone replies to the conversation in a comment thread, I ought to be notified immediately, somehow.
That’s precisely why I use the Disqus comment system on this blog, because it reduces friction to commenting, and empowers individual commenters to manage their own comments. Comment systems will become increasingly important — if for any reason, because comments often are more valuable than the original post that sparked the interaction.
As for Pete’s guest post from Kate, the topic is on the idea of influencer lists, and how they all lack objectivity, reliability and validity. I happen to agree with that assessment completely. Influence is a fascinating topic, but we still know very little about the mechanics. We need further exploration. And this blog is the only place I’ll be leaving that comment.
Pete and Kate: I would love your take on this issue as you roll out your enterprise social-media consulting firm!