If blogs are bad, blog readers are worse. And worse than blog readers are blog commenters (I'd write commentators, but that's really not correct), clinging to a periphery's periphary, a fringe's fringe.
Reading others' blogs, and having had this blog for almost two years now, I've noticed that, while the most salient category when discussing bloggers is field of interest, commenters are best categorized according to personality. But, as much as commenters define a blogger's sense of his or her audience, not much writing has been done about them; here, my attempt to rectify the situation by pinning down the recurring archetypes.
1. Borderline
Some blogs, more than others, attract this archetpye, quickly becoming homepages on every McLean's patient-accessible computer. These blogs serve as the blogosphere's Hellmouths, portals through which trolls enter the blogosphere and run freely until slayed. Until then, these commenters will mistake your posts for happy, well-loved bunnies that, for the commenters' peace of mind, must be stuffed quickly into killing-pots.
This type of commenter is especally attracted to posts with bitchy humor, and will go out of their way to interpet the humor as whatever personal quality they've always felt assaulted by. Unfortunately, their descriptions of the offensive quality enact, very accurately, the quality they find offensive. An example comment from Andrea's weblog: "OH and lastly I'm so sick of you 'I'm so educated and better than everyone else' type egos all over the web … You probably get orgasms from insulting those better than you." If you're accusing people of thinking they're better than you, don't also imply that insulting "those better than you" is orgasmic. Or, put a different way: most sadists are also masochists, and they love to fuck themselves.
2. Soulmate
The Soulmate usually, though not always, belongs to the opposite sex. And either your blog seems "friendly" to him/her, like a polite cheerleader talking to a zitty boy, or your quality of mind, given the Soulmate's assertion that he/she has the *same* *exact* thoughts, is much worse than even your pessimism had previously allowed you to assume. It should be noted: most Soulmates are also Non-native Thinkers, though most Non-native Thinkers are not Soulmates. The Soulmate, however, should never to be confused with a Companion.
3. Context-Blind
The context-blind commenter assumes you've authored every article you've blockquoted. While this would make you admirably prolific, it opens you up to their bewilderingly hysterical accusations. Unlike the Borderline commenter, in which delusional conclusions are willed in order to justify attacks, the context-blind poster has a slightly less sophisticted psychology. Media-unsavvy, they can't distinguish between originals and their quotations, and write fan letters addressed to characters. Of all the commenter types, the Context-blind is most likely to comment on a year-old entry and expect an immediate response, in which you ammend your "article" on abortion/God/Britney/sex with dolphins.
4. Teenager
Usually quarantined at Livejournal, the Teenager will sometimes smell food from a great distance. Infestation occurs quickly.
5. Non-Native Thinker
This commenter posts with the confidence of a professor in Comparitive Literature, and though you may have been in a tenured, senile professor's class before, the Non-native Thinker makes less sense more often. Charitably, you try to blur your eyes, hoping the grammar comes into focus like a hidden image in a stereogram. No.
6. Companion
The Companion is often a blogger from a well-liked or blogrolled site, and is the best reason to include space for comments on your blog. The Companion is usually a commentator, and, in that sense, doesn't belong here. But, if I didn't include a good archetype, readers might think I'm discouraging comments, when the sad truth is that I refresh my MT menu fourteen times an hour, hoping the comment count goes up one. When it doesn't, I feel cyberspace is dark and lonely.
Don't feel blue, N. Here's hoping we fall into Cat 6, but we're out here thinking well of you ...
Posted by: TEV on February 11, 2004 06:47 PMYou're right, there hasn't been enough writing about blog comments. And your anatomy of the various types of commenters is spot on. (From what I've been able to observe on other people's blogs anyway, since I get very few coments on mine.)
Actually, this post got me thinking about why I added a comment feature on my own blog. Yes, I'm interested in seeing what people think of the stuff I write, but I'm starting to believe that I mostly just want some way to measure my audience. Not merely in raw numbers, (I've got server logs for that) but I want to know what kind of people come to my site. Are they thoughtful, literate people? Or do they show up for the occasional pile of rambling swear words?
Posted by: rasputin on February 11, 2004 07:36 PMI added comments because I wanted instant indication that people loved me and paid attention to my blog. Well, aside from the fact that sometimes I post stuff that begs for thoughtful response so....why not allow for that?
That being said, the nice thing about being able to pollute, er, comment on other blogs is that I can say things there that I wouldn't on mine, due to topic constraints, tone/voice restraints, etc. Plus I can never get enough humor in my life, be it of the satirical, giggly, or psychotic kind. Or all of the above.
Posted by: Sarah on February 11, 2004 07:56 PMWow, that's a nice photo of Glen Close.
Posted by: Jeff on February 11, 2004 09:14 PMCyberspace is never dark or lonely with you around, Chicha.
Posted by: Terry Teachout on February 11, 2004 10:55 PMMay I suggest a few more categories?
7. Lurker. "Longtime reader, first-time commenter." This person has lurked in the shadows for ages without a peep, but now bursts forth with a complex response to a post that particularly hits his gut. Knows the rules and is careful to avoid obvious novice mistakes, and at the same time is so thorough and in-depth in response -- perhaps referring to a post from several months earlier -- as to seem perhaps a stalker. Is more likely closer to a Companion, but shy or a perfectionist.
8. Spammer. Posts purely to get his/her link onto the blog's site.
9. Ubiquitous Url. Responds to everyone's everything, regardless of content. Often responds within moments of the item's posting, leading one to wonder who has the time. There's no malice of forethought involved, and the responses are often entertaining and applicable ... but there is the risk of familiarity breeding fast-scrolling. May be an unemployed/underemployed Companion.
I wanted to suggest more positive comment styles too but the others spring to mind more easily. (And now I'm left with the awful worry of which category I fall into.)
I have a comments section on my page for the simple fact the my ego needs to be fed. I don't write for my ego though. I write with the simple hope that something I say may make a difference to one person. Now, that was much easier to assume when I was writing editorials and had a fairly defined audience. But out here, with an extremely new blog, I'll take whatever I get.
I digress, I think you are right on in that really no one has taken a close look at the types of commentators that are out there and the role they play. Sounds like someone future thesis to me.
r
Posted by: rob on February 11, 2004 11:59 PMThis is good stuff. Meme du jour honours... syndicate this far + wide, Ms Chica!
Posted by: Jeff#2 on February 12, 2004 10:27 AMTEV is SO a secret admirer. I want to be a big sis. Is that a scattergory?
Posted by: Old Hag on February 12, 2004 12:47 PMI don't have a comments section but your blog has intrigued me.
Posted by: Ron Mwangaguhunga on February 12, 2004 01:54 PMAnd then there's the commenter bored at work, simply trying to wile away the hours of a tedious day job, before he could go home and do great things.
Posted by: Ed on February 12, 2004 03:30 PMIf you stay snippy and badmouth the shit out of everyone, then you are top dog beyond reproach, right? nah. Not much here but bitchiness.
Posted by: poopsie on February 12, 2004 07:37 PMWhile on the topic of commenters, I'm really sick of Terry's brown-nosing.
Posted by: on February 12, 2004 07:44 PMOh yawn, has the backlash arrived so soon?
Posted by: Sarah on February 12, 2004 09:33 PMExcept for poopsie, I think everyone here falls into cat. six (big sis: OH's special subcategory). To poopsie: I wasn't commenting on "everyone," and your willingness to universalize what were very specific categories or, rather, apply the categories to yourself, probably should be read as a confession. Your comment is eactly what I meant by "borderline" posters enacting the qualities they find offensive: you're critiquing bitchiness by being extremely rude, and it would be crazy for anyone to read that as advice. Also, don't steal my nickname.
Posted by: Nathalie Chicha on February 12, 2004 09:35 PMHey there. I'm a longish-time reader, first time commentor. (At least I don't remember any specific incidents of commenting before.) I guess that would make me one of the lurkers mentioned above, but not in that creepy-stalker kind of way. Anyway, just wanted to say I'm a fan of your link finds. Keep it up!
Posted by: Media_Queen on February 13, 2004 12:37 AMProtocol people. I thought only Terry could call Nathalie "poopsie."
Posted by: Ed on February 13, 2004 09:30 AMHere are some more archtypes:
10. The nodder - named after that one side character in the movie Office Space who can only be seen when one of the managers gives a little speech. Unlike all his colleagues, he always looks somewhat chipper, clinging to his mug and nodding to what the manager is talking about. You find that on blogs a lot.
11. The drunkard - somebody who wades thru the wide world of blogs at night, being not entirely sober, and leaving somewhat incoherent comments and/or starting such arguments.
12. The fanatic - who really needs to comment on something s/he doesn't agree with, usually by using lots of swearwords and/or telling the blogger to go to hell. Usually only to be found where anything political is coming up.
Posted by: Joerg on February 13, 2004 11:18 AMThis is so well-done. Weird that you used that picture of Glenn Close as Alex Forrest. Years ago, in an old 'blog, I was inundated with anonymous guestbook comments by my boyfriend's spurned ex, who was, apparently, my most loyal reader. I'm not sure what category she would fall into - the real-life enemy who googles you one day and can't stop coming back? I never even met her in person. All I know is, it unnerved me so much that I briefly password-protected the 'blog just to have peace of mind. This girl didn't care about websites normally and my 'blog was probably the first one she ever saw - she could barely figure out email. I just added comments today, and my first thought was "God, I hope psycho has finally moved on." (I guess I'll know soon.)
This is such a brilliant post...I can't count the number of times I've tried to devise a witty taxonomy of blog comments and those who leave them. It was like you were finally expressing what I couldn't put into words. I loved the cute picture of you in your scarf too -- it even blinks if you stare at it long enough! I think we could be soulmates, Natalie...
Posted by: MQ on February 13, 2004 06:40 PMTerry and you, Ed.
Posted by: Nathalie Chicha on February 14, 2004 12:52 AM