To Those Who Lurk…
Posted by Wade on February 14th, 2006
I’ve noticed that The Blogger of Jared is increasingly drawing more readers - we average about 25 site visits from different I.P. addresses every day (this is a very small readership compared to the main blogs). However, a very small number of them comment. This has led me to formulate a question for those who lurk in the shadows: Why? I’m cognizant of the fact that this question will go unanswered because those who have standing to answer are those who consistently reserve their right to remain silent. Yet, I thought I would ask anyway.
Thus far, I have come up with a few working answers of my own: 1) You refuse to engage us in conversation because our posts are not intellectually stimulating and responding would be a waste of time (but you still visit the site hoping for something good); 2) You are affraid of being challenged and therefore never posit a theory of your own; 3) It takes too much effort to comment; 4) Or, it’s all just a big waste of time. Are there any other answers to the question?
There was a recent post over at BCC about lurking and how Blogging is similar to Relief Society lessons (posted by a woman), i.e. must be done according to accepted norms. Some comments in the thread noted that blogging is just a way to seek praise and recognition. I suppose the main reason we lurk (yes, I lurk at other sites) is that we don’t like the wasted time trying to conform to norms, and all the praise seeking.
I believe it’s for the same reason many of us read newspapers but don’t write letters to the editor. There doesn’t have to be a deep, thought-provoking answer
Comment # 1 left by Anonymous on February 14th, 2006
There doesn’t have to be a deep, thought-provoking answer
Nice one, way to cut to the chase. Maybe those of us who post and make comments are too deluded by what we think is thought provoking in our own minds?
Comment # 2 left by Wade on February 14th, 2006
I think it is a bit of all four.
Comment # 3 left by Anonymous on February 14th, 2006
Or…could it be that some are reading these stimulating thoughts just to formulate their own theories on these issues, through which their foundational armor of faith shall be fortified…
Comment # 4 left by Anonymous on February 14th, 2006
On most sites that I lurk on, the main reason I don’t post is because I don’t feel I have anything of worth to add. What confirms this is that typically when I do finally get the courage to post, my comments are usually ignored :-).
Sometimes, I get too worked up about the subject and I start to write a response and after a while I realize that my response will make me look ignorant and or dumb.
Comment # 5 left by Ian on February 14th, 2006
Dude, Ian, I’m right there with you. I don’t know how many paragraphs I’m grateful that I’ve erased.
Comment # 6 left by Rusty on February 14th, 2006
Ian said:
…I realize that my response will make me look ignorant and or dumb.
First off, I hope you don’t feel like your comments get ignored here because you seem to have thoughtful insights.
Also, your comment here seems to confirm the BCC thread’s (referenced above) thesis, or what I take to be the thesis: That due to the perceived norms of commenting/posting, many people’s comments, though insightful, get ignored or belittled.
I have actually been chastized for comments I’ve made, not because they were false or rude etc. but because they personally offended the poster/blogger. I have also noticed that some blogs have a policy that commentators can’t call into question the personal righteousness of the perma-bloggers or other commentators but it is perfectly okay to question the righteousness of general authorities and other leaders of the Church.
In sum, I think a main force driving the lurking syndrome is the norms established in the bloggernacle that prevent a lot of otherwise good comments from being made.
Comment # 7 left by Wade on February 14th, 2006
So your position is that the bloggernacle would be a better place if we could question the personal righteousness of the bloggers? Or if we were restricted from questioning the church?
Frankly, the reason you’re getting so many new hits is because you’re now listed on the Mormon Archipelago. Since few people are familiar with your blog, they click through to see what you have to say.
Maybe people don’t want to comment because of attitudes like the above.
Comment # 8 left by Anonymous on February 15th, 2006
Wade,
What you describe is fairly standard. I would say pretty much all bloggernacle sites log about 10 times more unique visitors than they do comments, if not more.
I think there are a lot of people who use the MA to browse around a lot of blogs just to see what different people are saying.
Comment # 9 left by Eric Russell on February 15th, 2006
In my observation LDS blogs have a higher comment-to-visitor ratio than, say, politically oriented blogs. If you look at a site like T&S, and the number of comments they get in a given day vs. the number of visitors they receive, you’d see that it’s actually a relatively small percentage.
Comment # 10 left by Eddie on February 15th, 2006
Anonymous said:
So your position is that the bloggernacle would be a better place if we could question the personal righteousness of the bloggers? Or if we were restricted from questioning the church?
I think it’s interesting how you have interpreted my statement!
First off, I never said anything about “questioning the church”, I said “questioning” the personal righteousness of its leaders - there is a fundamental difference in my mind! Furthermore, I probably should have clarified what I meant about the policy of other blogs in questioning other’s righteousness: I generally don’t think it’s a good idea to question anyone’s righteousness. However, I have found that many perma-bloggers are extremely sensitive to any challenges to their beliefs and they translate these challenges as very personal attacks to their righteousness.
Overall, I just find it interesting that the bloggernacle is a place where people are free to make personal attacks on past and current leadership of the church (calling them racists, biggots, and practitioners of priestcraft etc.), while questioning the ideas/beliefs of those who make such statements is absolutely off limits. These norms seem to have established a regime for tearing down aspects of the Church with impunity, and I think this is a turn-off for many who would otherwise defend the Church in many instances.
Lastly, I do want to recognize that I am fairly ignorant when it comes to knowing the common visitor to comments ratio. But regardless, there is an answer as to what drives this ratio isn’t there?
Comment # 11 left by Wade on February 15th, 2006
Wade, this is an engaging post that draws the limited number of people who love to comment. For example, I came to your site via Snarkernacle who found this post noteworthy…in a way, it really is like putting a scent in the water which, depending on the scent and the day and the alignment of the stars…will attract a certain ratio of lurkers to commentors.
I agree with others above who suggest there’s more a fixed human factor…a general rule of lurk to comment ratio which gets manipulated by special cases.
What the special cases are is a fuzzy subject, and explaining the general rule as the result of any one special case is going to be highly speculative.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Comment # 12 left by Watt Mahoun on February 15th, 2006
Watt Mahoun said:
…there’s more a fixed human factor…
Yeah, I agree. It really is interesting how certain anomalous posts draw out the lurkers on occasion.
Comment # 13 left by Wade on February 15th, 2006
watt, I noticed that you didn’t post anything at the snarkernackle. In the spirit of the discussion, why is it that you lurked over there, but posted here?
Comment # 14 left by Ian on February 15th, 2006
Ian, often I don’t respond to comments I enjoy simply because there’s nothing to add, and I feel silly saying “well put” to a comment. I’ll say that in response to an particularly awesome original post, but not usually to a comment, although I’m not sure why. I do smile when I see your name at the top of a comment, because yours are always worth reading. I enjoy your perspective.
Comment # 15 left by Ariel on February 15th, 2006
ariel, i’m touched…
Comment # 16 left by Ian on February 15th, 2006
Ian,
Good question. In this case it was because I didn’t think I had anything to add to the Snarker’s post…though I guess I could go back and just thank her/him for pointing me here…but the cool thing about blogs is that thanking by linking is better than thanking by saying. And now I’ve two links in for ol’ snarkie.
When I got here, I was personally engaged by the topic and felt compelled to comment…to add my two cents as that is what Wade was asking for…FWIW.
Comment # 17 left by Watt Mahoun on February 15th, 2006
I was mostly joking really, but sometimes one feels compelled to post. Especially if the topic is about not posting.
Comment # 18 left by Ian on February 15th, 2006