they're immune to your consultations

[freckles_and_doubt]

So, you lot are odd. More specifically, I lament my complete and utter inability to map your responses, i.e. to predict which of my posts will garner millyuns of comments, and which will languish with no more adornment than a grammar nit-pick and an unrelated link. On the whole I'm in this blogging lark for the dialogue and wish to provoke same, tending to feel confused and unfulfilled if I don't succeed. This is provoking introspection. (Possibly exacerbated by an uneasy night after an emergency visit to my dad, who seems to have picked up a 'flu bug which is not interacting at all well with his motor neurone symptoms).

I am interested to notice that, while posts tagged, for example, "narcissism" on the whole attract a reasonable number of comments despite my expectation exactly to the contrary, posts in which I offer a detailed review of a film or book generally don't pick up on the comment action. In fact, most of them are not commented on at all. I am fascinated by this, and somewhat at a loss to account for it. Inevitably, pollage results.

[Poll #1442936]
Or, as always, leave some other pithy rejoinder in the comments. (See what I did there? self-conscious self-fulfilling recursive reference ftw!)

Comments

[kadekraan.livejournal.com]

Sorry, "I found something in there" meant to be "I found something in the comments" (could be read as me finding something in the original post)

[extemporanea.livejournal.com]

This may be another corollary to XKCD's Third Observation, namely Someone Is Wrong On The Internet - or, in this case, an equal possibility that someone is right? Highly compressed opinions in comments are far easier to react to than the often wordy wodge of my posts. Valid point.

At the risk of sounding obnoxious, it suddenly occurs to me that some kinds of comment dearth may be because the general intelligence level of commenters on this blog makes it mercifully free from "Me, too!"s - people only really comment when they have something, however lateral, to add.

[kadekraan.livejournal.com]

Well, the alleged wordy wodgeness of your posts wasn't quite my point ;-) I was thinking more that the more opinions there are in the mix - again, across all friend blogs I read, not just yours - the more likely I will find something that motivates me to engage, rather than spectate.

Reviews in general do not inspire me to comment. I think it's partly because I can see the person has done much thinking about the subject matter and I feel a bit sheepish about then coming back with some half-arsed comment. And then what if my comment triggers some sort of lengthy well-considered response? Then I feel both guilty about abusing the person's time, and anxious about the prospect of a debate where I will be expected to produce some sort of reasoned argument, and even worse, care about it.

What type of comments would you like to get on your reviews?

Oooo, it's raining. Lovely :-)

[egadfly.livejournal.com]

I have a theory that better thought out posts are less likely to attract comments. The edifice of ideas may be intimidating, or it may simply be too much work to develop a fitting response. Flawed/uncertain posts give readers more "hooks" to hang responses on. Just a theory.

[kadekraan.livejournal.com]

I think that if the better thought out post is serious that's probably true. If it's silly that isn't necessarily the case. But you could argue that the silliness is a big, fat hook. Or Greek wedding. So, I agree. With the theory that is yours. Ahem.

It's possible to introduce more hooks while still maintaining essay integrity, but I don't know that's time well spent unless you're desperate for comments, or are specificially looking for a discussion.