Global PR Blog Week 1.0

The thought of approving comments before they are posted is really antiethical to blogging. That harkens back to the old command-control method. Why bother if you are going to muzzle those who disagree with you?

I'd suggest posting guidelines for commenting, warning people profanity and libel won't be permitted. That is OK. But be careful walking that line of deleting other points of view. One of the points of blogging is discussion.

Posted by: Elizabeth Albrycht at July 12, 2004 02:57 PM

Hi Elizabeth,

If a comment is made that actually contributes something to the discussion I agree. Most people who post do post something worthwhile on my blog. However sometimes people spam me. I have no problem with removing their post and not sending them an email. My blog is my website, and I do control the content.

If people do disagree with me and are not just trying to increase their link popularity rating I am happy to leave the post.

John

Posted by: John Cass at July 12, 2004 09:24 PM

This discussion is fitting within the context of today's topic - participatory journalism. The question though it seems is - how much participation and by whom? The idea of guidelines is a good one. However, what is notable is that a Blog can be many things - depending on its purpose, topic, audience and objective. A Blog can be a fully open discussion with limited moderation such as this, or a more tightly moderated discussion with lots of contributors, or a single source communications vehicle with few if any comments allowed.

The key benefit is that Blogs as a communications tool have the ability to accomplish many objectives. In the example I cited above, perhaps the FCC actually wanted comments on other topics - but was afraid to ask directly (doubtful). More than likely, they actually wanted input on the transition to digital television but did not set up their tool in order to effectively accomplish their objective.

Posted by: Chris Bechtel at July 12, 2004 10:18 PM

Blog is convenient/human way to communicate with customers. It helps create constant communication channel and it is opposite to depersonalized corporate marketing voices.
But what about possible damages?
My website visits more than 3000 visitors daily. Guidelines, rules and policies are posted. But visitors violate them constantly. Some of them continue to do it even after warning. I call it "informational terrorism". In some cases this kind of activity is very difficult to stop because internet gives many ways to hide or fake identity and internet providers ignore complaints. My website is non-commercial and it is very difficult to destroy its reputation build over 6 years of existence and public recognition. But I think for commercial companies especially young and small it can be PR disaster to have unmoderated blog, because it is great gift to competitors and strangers to destroy anonymously their efforts to make their brand more recognizable in positive way. Because I think it is right way to use tools like Chris mentioned and it is only one way to convince corporates that blogs are useful and not dangerous. Internet was created by people who trusted each other… Welcome to real world.

Posted by: Vadim Derkach at July 17, 2004 01:32 AM