Meta-discussion about LJ

[alexxkay]

siderea recently tried to start a discussion (on the topic of "love"). I observe that, though she got many people replying, there was very little discussion, or back-and-forth. Such back-and-forth discussions do happen on LJ, so why didn't any happen this time? Does it have to do with the topic?

My suspicion in this case is that it was more the format of the initial post. She posted a long list of (interesting) questions. Soem people are obviously willing to answer a long list like that. But I suspect that few people are willing to follow up on other people's long list of answers.

Is it the case that, for involved discussion to happen, the initial "starter" post needs to be more tightly constrained?

Comments

[juldea.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Or, people need to not feel very sleepy when they reply. That at least is keeping me from saying more than, "Yes," in response to you right now.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

One of my left-coast pals complained about this recently. The largest problem with a discussion on LJ is that most of the people reading someone, have similar views. Thus, it isn't going to engender a lot of controversy.

Another problem is that LJ is very short-attention-span compliant. New entries keep showing up. You have to remember to go back and check on ones that are older, even if they're good discussions.

And lastly, yeah, people have to be in the mood for a rousing debate when they read it, because of the short-attention-span problem. On an email list, a debate can go for days, weeks even. Not here.

Oh, and a list of questions, while internally thought-provoking, isn't great for a debate. One really needs to start off with one contentious issue. It might fork from there, but starting off with too many threads means it won't go anywhere. Years and years ago, when I was Mistress Tina on the adult area at CitiNet, I found that four topic lines was the max that my group of 30? active participants could keep thriving.

Re:

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

Ironically, I agree with all your points except the first. I think to the extent that a user influences who their friends are, they can tend towards those of similar views, or those with very different views. I, for one, am all for interesting variance.

Re:

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Yes, but my belief is that while different views are interesting, on big questions (Who is going to Hell? Is there a Hell? Is George Bush going there?) friends are going to be fairly much in the same camp. There will be some differences, as a recent discussion that Alexx and I and Metageek had, illustrates. But it's a rare person who will have a good friend who loathes their principles.

Re:

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Ah, Mistress Tina, I remember her well. Good times :-)

Re:

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

Citinet! Ye gods, a blast from the past!

Maybe

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

The topic, the format, and the length were probably all factors in keeping back-and-forth low. If the initial round of answers exceeds the comment character limit, consider how awkwardly large in depth responses to those answers could quickly become. You can abstract threads of someone else's answers, but given the topic that might be less likely to happen, it being somewhat all bound together. The format has its impact in that the answers tended to leave fewer handholds for further exposition. As an example of a good handhold, try this: since you were yourself a respondent who didn't reply to others, what were your reasons?

Re: Maybe

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Pretty much what I (in my initial post here) suspected might be more general: a long list of questions, rather than a single more focused one.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I have observed this. When I want discussion / lots of feedback on my journal, I try to keep the post short. However this may be because people don't want to read through my whole entry, and they don't want to reply unless they've read all of it.

Perhaps a better idea is to restructure the posts: just pose the provocative question and give my own reply as a comment.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it also seems to matter whether people have a stronger opinion/need to speak out on what was in the original post, vs. what was in the discussion. It also snowballs pretty quickly if someone *does* respond to a comment...

[siderea]

Er, because unless they get a response to their own post, people don't go back to see what other people wrote?

I posted on the weekend, and there's a lot of people who only read during the weekdays, so replies to the initial post continue to come in, but people who aren't checking in wouldn't know about them.

I had hoped to do some responses to keep things rolling, but life happened. :(

Have a lot of other comments, observations, etc. -- and even a bunch of pointers on fostering on-line discussions from a training class at work today! -- but life is continuing to happen.