'Many believe that every document on the web -- even every paragraph or sentence -- should be, at least potentially, the root of a threaded discussion. I have thought so too, for a long time. But now I'm wondering whether this "bug" in Radio is really a feature. Writing for Radio feels different than writing for discussion groups. It feels more like writing for publication. It makes you want to think through what you say more carefully, and not shoot from the hip.' [John Udell]
'It never occurred to me that web writing needed to be part of a threaded discussion. I always considered web writing to be just like any other writing: initially a discussion with myself, a way of discovering what I felt or thought about the things that mattered to me; only subsequently would it develop into a discussion with others. But it's easy to modify John's model so that the "threaded discussion" becomes one woven from the multiplicity of writing voices. The resulting metalog, because it's carefully and skilfully written, is pleasurable to read -- qualitatively if not quantitatively superior to the conventional threaded web conversation. (Immediately I type myself as elitist.)' [Jonathon Delacour Unplugged]
So others are grappling with this weblog-vs-webdiscussion thing as well. At first it bothered me that Radio didn't "do" discussions out of the box. I see the ability to add comments on other weblogs, but I can't get that without some work. I might look into that, but I kinda doubt it now. I think Mr. Udell is on the right track.
1:16:13 PM #
|
|
