Dean's World

Ron Coleman muses on an interesting question: Why are most internet readers silent?

This is a subject I've been contemplating for decades, from back in the days when I was a professional sysop on the old GEnie network, wherein we had thousands of daily readers on our RoundTable (GEnie's word for "forum") and I discovered from the user statistics that people who left messages in the "bulletin board" were outnumbered by at least 10:1 by people who actually read it.

When I started looking at the Dean's World reader statistics some five years ago, I was unsurprised to notice a similar pattern: readers always vastly outnumbered commenters. Always.

In fact, 10:1 is probably very conservative for the blogosphere.

Once you realize that this is simply a truism, and unlikely to change, it changes your attitude about blogging, and much else.

The reality behind this is visible every time you're in a business meeting with more than three or four people. What do you see in such meetings? A few people do most of the talking, a few others offer a few brief comments, and most others remain entirely silent unless directly prodded--and then they (usually) say as little as possible, although sometimes they change the entire conversation when they do so.

Some are afraid to be made fools of, or aren't sure what they think, or think you can learn more by listening than by talking. So they just sit and listen.

Now amplify it online: many people, even bright and talented people, just plain hate writing. Or they're insecure. Plus they see what really goes on: if you stick your neck out then people will often swing swords at it.

Writing is an act of leadership in such an environment. It may not seem like it, but it is.

I see it every day on Dean's World. I get emails constantly from people who don't want to leave a public comment but want to tell me privately what they think, or who want to share something with me but don't want to leave a public comment. I even have ex-bloggers--people who quit because they didn't want to do it anymore--email me regularly with their comments and with suggested links. Or from people who maintain a blog, but refuse to put anything controversial on it because they'd rather pass it to me quietly.

It's where half my links come from.

Here's the truth:

Blogging on controversial issues is an exercise in arrogance and occasionally self-indulgence. It is also an exercise in leadership. Both are basically the same thing.

If you're a blogger and you don't recognize that both assertions are true, then you're being at least a little foolish and/or naive.

The same is true of commenters. Commenters are truly invaluable to the good blogger. If you use them as an exercise in self-aggrandizement, then, you're just mentally masturbating on your front page. But if you look upon them as people who provide a necessary foil and a very necessary check on your own arrogance, then, they are invaluable.

But they, too, are being arrogant. They presume to take a public stance in opposition, or in support. And they, too, will always be a minority. They're willing to speak up. They're leaders too.

As another exercise in self-aggrandizement, I'll tell you what my philosophy toward commenters on Dean's World is, and has been for a long time:

I have no interest in sycophants, and I also have no interest in bloviators who seek to turn every conversation to their pet peeves--including my own shortcomings, which are manifold but not an appropriate subject for every conversation. Unlike other blogs, I want the Dean's World comments to be constantly challenging and interesting. I've worked hard to establish that. In my own imperfect way.

As Tyrone has said, if you come here, you'd best come correct. Meaning: if you're going to use up our precious time with your words, you'd better have something to say that's worth reading. Even if it's just funny or silly.

That's my arrogance.

But Dean's World had a bit over 32,000 visits on Sunday, out of 10,800 unique IP addresses. And only a handful of commenters. But almost all of those comments were worth reading.

I don't care how many comments get left, and assign no great significance to a thread that has zero comments. So what? Tons of people are reading, and benefiting from it. Even if the benefit is just to laugh, or determine that they disagree.

Dean's World could become like Tim Blair or Little Green Footballs or Daily Kos or Firedog Lake: every thread with dozens or hundreds of comments, most of them not worth the time to read.

I don't want that, so I do it differently. I don't care if an entire day goes by with no comments. The really good commenters will say something when they have something interesting to say.

When you first start a new blog, you want commenters. You thirst for them. Why wouldn't you? You--being an arrogant person in many ways--thirst for the validation of having someone answer you. Just getting an answer assures you that yes, someone is at least reading and thinking about what you wrote.

Then, if you keep going and develop an audience--and you will develop an audience if you keep writing regularly--you reach another point, where growth continues and you realize you actually want a decent conversation. Or you just want sycophants and constant validation. Or you let the constant nattering and criticism destroy you, which is what did the great Steven Den Beste in. Anyway, you make a choice:

1) Shut the comments down (like Instapundit did) and stop paying attention to most of the emails
2) Let the comments become chaos
3) Quit
4) Shepherd the comments and just deal with the fact that a lot of people seem to hate you

I see no other choices. #4 is the most demanding, which is why few choose it.

I mostly find it worth it, even if it makes me crazy sometimes, and I sometimes (usually?) fail in my best aspirations and lose my temper. In fact, losing my temper is probably my most chronic shortcoming.

But remember it always: when you blog on controversial issues, you're being arrogant, and you're being a leader. Both are always true. And if you keep writing, and keep writing well, the readers will come.

It may also make you a little (or a lot) crazy sometimes. That's your price of admission: you asked for it, bubbula.

The silent majority just sits and watches. They have their own lives and their own concerns, and you're just a small part of it at best.

I don't like Don Imus. I never have. But Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, what a bunch of sobbing whiners America's women have become.

Radio shock jock Don Imus recently issued an offhanded rude comment about a group of stellar, amazing college basketball players. His comment was mildly racially inflammatory, somewhat more sexist, and totally stupid. It was also just an offhand comment by a well-known shock-jock who's made his whole living being obnoxious.

The reaction of these poor wilting-lilly women and their coach? And both the "liberal" and "conservative" political establishments? Just look at the results: the coach gives us a lengthy and unnecessary defense of her players in a national press conference, while everyone else fulminates about the evil men and/or the evil liberals and/or evil conservatives or whatever.

What next? Will all these fragile flower basketball ladies get the vapors and faint?

Does even one of them have the moxie to just say, "to hell with you Imus, you stupid old fart" and otherwise forget his stupidity?

My God. When did American women--black women no less, who are usually so proud and so strong!--become such freaking wimps?

*Update*: Mrs. Esmay is even less charitable than I am.

*Update 2*: If these women had any balls at all, they'd make fun of creepy old Imus, challenge him to a game of one-on-one, and then ask him to lead the tipoff in their next game after they embarrassed him.

*Update 3*: Since some seem not to have clicked the link that led to my rant above, here are some choice quotes from the coach who held the national press conference:

"We have all been physically, mentally and emotionally spent. So hurt by the remarks that were uttered by Mr. Imus."

"Yes, and I’ve cried and I’ve been angry and disappointed. Because I don’t understand all of that. And yet, to a great extent I do. I do. "

"It’s more than the Rutgers women’s basketball team. It is all women athletes. It is all women."

"Is there malice in my heart? No, I’m hurt. But I do recognize that this issue speaks to a bigger issue. To utter such despicable words are not right, whether spoken by black, white, purple or green, male or female, tall or short, skinny or thin, fat, whatever. It is not right. It’s time for everybody to reflect on what is going on. Oh it’s time, ladies and gentlemen. It’s been time."

"And I trust that our president, our governor, our athletic director will continue to lead, support, respect, honor and defend these young ladies."

You need a national press conference and the involvement of political leaders, to tell us all you've cried and you're hurt and you need these young women defended--from a jackass shock jockey like DON FRICKIN' IMUS?!!?!?