You Asked: Are Nasty Comments Worth The Traffic They Draw?

There's actually been some studies done on traffic that indicate that "commenting" no longer brings people in the way it used to, and that it really only covers less than 1% of the readership and that different forms of sharing (i.e via facebook ,twitter, digg, email, etc,) will drive more traffic to a particular article.

Plus, at the Gate, where people don't use their real names and are still figuring out AOL dialup to rant about "librulls" and the like, the comments devalue the site to the point where I only read Beth's column and a few things, and that's it. Otherwise it's a stew of disinformation and hate and makes you wonder if instant communication at the speed of light really is such a great idea.

http://www.soapboxincluded.com/2009/09/28/an-end-to-blog-comments/

Opinions are like sphincters: everyone gets one.

@gdewar is right about the SFGate comments. To paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi's description of Mos Eisley: "you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany."

But my question is: are you in it for the reaction, or do you have the self-confidence to write what you believe, and damn the reaction?

I am definitely NOT in it for the negative reaction. At all.
I hope I always write what I believe. I don't chaulk it up to self-confidence, necessarily. It's just way more fun to write stuff I actually believe than to write stuff just to tick folks off...

How dare anyone question highly relevant internet comments? Clearly, Eve and Beth are neo-Nazi lesbians who eat children for breakfast and shoot kittens just for fun.

Have "kittens" and "children" swap places and you're dead on.

I agree with you, Greg - but doesn't that study also show you should let the flames happen (if we're talking about them being good for traffic)? After all, it was the call to action on Debaser's facebook page that escalated the whole thing to "flame war" (barf). And, as you point out, one comment left on the blog wouldn't have had the same effect on traffic.

So 3 out of 4 Big-Time Interneters agree? Traffic is a favor? (Mixed blessing, sure. A chocolate eclair with razors.) But bottom line: a plus. The negatives are all psychological, yes? Because SFGate is sui generis. Trolls from Texas aren't commenting on SFWeekly are they?

I'll say this: I'm all over the SF blogosphere and was sorta "meh" on Mission Mission. Great site. Great community. Just not my cup of tea. But I'm paying attention now. Shit's goin on over there. And yeah. Now that I think about it ... I started visiting SFist during Seibelgate. Isn't there an argument to be made that a 1% jump in readership can be pretty big?

It's lovely when the comments take on a life of their own with a good give and take. Richly rewarding, traffic-wise and to the writer. When that happens, it brings people back, I think. If it doesn't increase traffic, a hefty amount of comments give a site a certain lilt.

Seriously, "a certain lilt"? Shut up, faggot.

...a certain je ne sais quoi, if you will.

FRENCH faggot! Go fuck a baguette! Or get fucked by one! Whatever!

I'm sitting here happy when I get 30 hits in a day on my blog. I'm going to go be sick now.

The blog that I had had tons of traffic but no commenters.

: )