Blog Threads

[stargazer]

If there was to be a rule change that posts over here could be used in blog posts, I hope that there would be a message and that it would only apply to posts going forward.  I can't think of any posts of mine that I would actually mind, but it's been a long time.   I'm sure some people would be horrified to think their private (within a moderated members only group) would go public when that was not the intention when they posted them (I'm thinking mostly of a lot of the "I Need a Hug" folder here but there have been posts like that in other spots).  If there was a rule change, then everyone could know that your post in the future may not stay in the forum.

[Yvaine]

If there was to be a rule change that posts over here could be used in blog posts, I hope that there would be a message and that it would only apply to posts going forward.  I can't think of any posts of mine that I would actually mind, but it's been a long time.   I'm sure some people would be horrified to think their private (within a moderated members only group) would go public when that was not the intention when they posted them (I'm thinking mostly of a lot of the "I Need a Hug" folder here but there have been posts like that in other spots).  If there was a rule change, then everyone could know that your post in the future may not stay in the forum.

Yeah, I'd certainly be heavily against any public posting of posts from the members-only areas; while it may be legal, IMO it would be rude and a breach of trust.

As for posts in the public areas of the forum, I think that could work as long as the rules were absolutely clear. I think we've sometimes actually replied to a forum story by saying that it's one that ought to be on the main site. In practice, I don't actually see the blog vs. forum as a dichotomy between pure etiquette questions and real-life applications; the blog stories contain a lot of extenuating life circumstances too. I see the big difference as, how epic is the story? The blog stories tend to be longer, tend to contain sensational elements (i.e. it's not just about someone cutting in line at the grocery store), and tend to be stories that are over and in the past (hence having a tidy ending) rather than ongoing.

[camlan]

I'm a bit confused about the whole situation. I hadn't realized we weren't supposed to discuss anything about the blog here. There aren't that many posts here about the blog, and I don't recall seeing many of the comments discussed here. How serious is this problem?

Truthfully, I don't visit the blog very often. And I find the comments there difficult to read, because of the order they are in, so I read those even less. I had no idea there was a lot of cross-over.

I would not be happy if anything I posted here were to be posted on the blog. If that is going to happen, I don't think it should be retro-active.

Please, just make a clear, straight-forward rule. Post it. And then let everyone decide if they want to stay or not.

I have to admit that the OP and follow-up make me feel like a little child being chastised, and I don't think I've done anything wrong.

[MariaE]

And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

Assuming we're only talking about "public" posts and not those in the folders that are members only, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Public's public.

[Ms_Cellany]

And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

Assuming we're only talking about "public" posts and not those in the folders that are members only, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Public's public.

I agree. I would be very disappointed to see anyone's post from a members-only area referred to on the main blog.

[Ceallach]

On the blog, anybody could post under any name.  There is greater continuity in terms of who I am here and the opinions I share.   

Actually the blog software tracks a person's ID, email address, IP address and how many submitted comments have been approved.   When a comment is waiting in moderation, I see all these things.  Twik and Virg are two recognizable forum members who comment on the blog and if some troll were to create a new "Twik", it would have a different email address and IP address and no approved comment number which raises suspicions.

I know that technically it's possible, but wasn't sure if it's something you pay attention to.    It is nice to know that it would get flagged as suspicious if somebody external was trying to take a poster's identity so to speak.   

And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

As I said, I'm torn on this one, and really think it just comes down to a consistent policy decision being made as to how you want the site to run.    This week was the first time I saw a blog post discussed on the forums, and I admit to finding it slightly... strange.   I wasn't surprised when it was locked.   It felt similar to when somebody posts a thread complaining about a conversation on another thread or trying to restart a closed topic, kind of as though we were talking about and sniping about each other (although I know that wasn't the posters intention).    In terms of the other way around, I think it's fine, and well within your rights, but I would suggest not identifying the poster who made the original post.   So putting in on the blog and referring to it generically as an example from the forum.   I've seen this done on other blogs - comments from forums used as content for future posts.  However, there are others who I know would not be comfortable with it, and I think that it will inevitably impact upon people's interactions in the community here.   So it's a matter of whether that's a price you're willing to pay for the benefit of having that extra source of content for the blog.   There are pros and cons either way and personally I'm not greatly concerned for myself.  But I am concerned about it creating drama on the forum if people get upset at how their posts are handled.  That type of drama does impact upon all of us.  So the sooner we have clarity I think the better for everybody.  There will be grumbles either way and then it will settle down!

[jmarvellous]

I would not post nearly as much, if at all, if I thought my posts here were going to be fodder for dissection on the blog. I clearly do not get a vote, but if this were a democracy, I'd vote a solid "no."

I'm here to converse and learn, not to be the subject of someone's blog; if I wanted that, I'd start my own blog. As it is, I'm fine reading the eHell blog on occasion.

I don't really have a problem with there being a rule of "no discussing the blog on the forum" or "no discussing blog comments on the forum," but I don't see any need for the former.

[still in va]

And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

i guess i don't really get the question.  the E-Hell blog is heavily moderated by you, Miss Jeannie, because anyone on the internet can post a comment there.  you allow what is allowed into the comments.  which is how it should be in that context.  someone has to weed out the trollish comments on a blog open to the entire internet.

this place, here?  has a screening process that can take two weeks to even be accepted.  is this a closed place?  no it's not.  but it is a safer place than a blog on the internet.  we can post in real-time and have a dialog without waiting for comments to be approved. 

so i see your question as apples and oranges.  two different places, two different "styles".

Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post.  that was posted on the blog on July 30, and there was no activity there in comments after August 2.  posting that blog post here in late September took nothing away from the blog.  it might actually have interested some posters to actually check out the blog.  and asking why we weren't commenting on that topic in the blog was strange.  if anyone HAD commented, no one would have seen them anyway, since the post was so old.  but that topic here generated a pretty respectful debate, and you didn't even have to read and approve a single word.  i'm still not sure where the angst regarding the comments to the blog post came in, complete with the threat to post our stuff here to the blog, came about.  no one in that thread commented on the comments to the blog post.  we treated it as a whole new topic.

i would appreciate a concrete policy of "thou shalt not ever make a thread about a blog post on the E-Hell blog here, ever".  though i suppose that's really not necessary, is it?  you've gotten your point across very well.

[squeakers]

Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing. 

The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open.  Whereas here I have seen people disagree with the Dame and as long as they kept it respectful.. it was like any other thread. 

To me that thread was like being at a party in the Dame's house, coming around the corner and overhearing several guests gossiping/talking/commenting about her.  When they could have just came around the same corner and said the same things to her "face".

[stargazer]

Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open. 

Actually Abby quite often posts responses to previous letters from readers that disagree with her original response and Prudence has an area for comments and plenty of people disagree with her there.   Not sure about some others but those two off the top of my head definitely have people disagreeing with them and have it posted.

[MariaE]

Miss Jeanne, it sounds like you care more about the blog than the forum - or that the blog is more important to you anyway?

If the problem is taking conversation away from the blog, then how about making an 'age' rule - blog posts may be posted here, but only once they're x months old (3, 6, 9, 12, whatever). By that time the post will be 'dead' on the blog anyway.

[Iris]

Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing. 

The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open.  Whereas here I have seen people disagree with the Dame and as long as they kept it respectful.. it was like any other thread. 

To me that thread was like being at a party in the Dame's house, coming around the corner and overhearing several guests gossiping/talking/commenting about her.  When they could have just came around the same corner and said the same things to her "face".

This. The "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" thread bothered me when I saw it but I couldn't quite work out why and I couldn't decide if it was report-worthy or not, so I chose to just not comment or view any further replies. Squeaker has really clarified for me why I thought it was a bit off.

[Ceallach]

Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing. 

The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open.  Whereas here I have seen people disagree with the Dame and as long as they kept it respectful.. it was like any other thread. 

To me that thread was like being at a party in the Dame's house, coming around the corner and overhearing several guests gossiping/talking/commenting about her.  When they could have just came around the same corner and said the same things to her "face".

Actually Abby quite often posts responses to previous letters from readers that disagree with her original response and Prudence has an area for comments and plenty of people disagree with her there.   Not sure about some others but those two off the top of my head definitely have people disagreeing with them and have it posted.

That's true, but the analogy still works.   Because the posters here could likewise post it *on* the blog, e.g. submit their dissenting views directly - as many do - the same as one would to those other writers.    Instead it's being discussed separately but still within the dame's "house" as Squeakers puts it.   

[Iris]

In terms of the OP -

1. I would be unhappy if forum posts were used on the blog without the courtesy of asking for permission first. I know it is EHellDame's right to do so but as a gracious hostess I would hope that the OP's feelings be taken into account. If permission is sought (and a refusal accepted) then I think it is quite a reasonable thing.

2. I am happy to abide by a rule that says no commenting on the blog posts in the forum if such a rule is created. Or a time sensitive rule or whatever. I agree that it is often tedious and redundant to comment on the blog and I rarely do so except on Fridays. Not that the posts aren't interesting, just that it's disheartening to post and then see that your post is sitting smack in the middle of 50 identical posts  .

3. Due to what I have just said I can see why some posters might want to - hopefully - find a polite way to incorporate blog posts into the forum. Perhaps notifying a moderator first or having a "Blog Discussion" folder? However I know nothing about the management of blogs and can accept that perhaps due to traffic numbers or revenue or whatever it might be better for EHellDame if our comments go on the blog and accept that it might not be possible.

[Visiting Crazy Town]

There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0