Comments on: To Liveblog or Not to Liveblog: That is the Question http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/07/02/to-liveblog-or-not Because these are the early days of a long revolution . . . Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:07:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: shel israel http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/07/02/to-liveblog-or-not#comment-123265 shel israel Tue, 03 Jul 2007 05:02:15 +0000 http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/07/02/to-liveblog-or-not/#comment-123265 It seems to me that nothing will ever beat being in the room. Live blogging or perhaps live streaming opens a porthole into the room allows other people to get a sense of what is happening as it happens. It gives speakers a chance to address a wider audience. It allow speakers to show prospects for their next event to show people what they are missing and it gives viewers and readers a chance to see what they are fortunate or unfortunate to miss. I just don't see te logic of trying to censor this remarkable way to extend the experience beyond the confines of the room. Everyone wins. It seems to me that nothing will ever beat being in the room. Live blogging or perhaps live streaming opens a porthole into the room allows other people to get a sense of what is happening as it happens. It gives speakers a chance to address a wider audience. It allow speakers to show prospects for their next event to show people what they are missing and it gives viewers and readers a chance to see what they are fortunate or unfortunate to miss.

I just don’t see te logic of trying to censor this remarkable way to extend the experience beyond the confines of the room. Everyone wins.

]]> By: John http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/07/02/to-liveblog-or-not#comment-122896 John Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:49:15 +0000 http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/07/02/to-liveblog-or-not/#comment-122896 Hello Shel - thanks for the comment. While I can see reading Steve's objection as being based on the bad review, I don't think that's the thrust of many of the other folks talking about liveblogging who have concerns about its impact. In other words, you may be right in that particular case but the broader issue is still whether or not liveblogging adds value, is worthless, or (worse) takes value away! On your second point, while I can certainly see the irony in having a social media conference that doesn't allow social media technologies to be used - what about other conferences? I can imagine contexts in which liveblogging would present more challenges than benefits. Hello Shel – thanks for the comment.

While I can see reading Steve’s objection as being based on the bad review, I don’t think that’s the thrust of many of the other folks talking about liveblogging who have concerns about its impact. In other words, you may be right in that particular case but the broader issue is still whether or not liveblogging adds value, is worthless, or (worse) takes value away!

On your second point, while I can certainly see the irony in having a social media conference that doesn’t allow social media technologies to be used – what about other conferences? I can imagine contexts in which liveblogging would present more challenges than benefits.

]]> By: shel israel http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/07/02/to-liveblog-or-not#comment-122895 shel israel Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:42:53 +0000 http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/07/02/to-liveblog-or-not/#comment-122895 I'm a it disappointed that you covered what everyone else had to say about an incident in which I was very much involved, but you did not cover any of my key points, the most important are: (1) There were other live bloggers covering Steve. He objected to me not because I was live blogging but because I gave him a bad review. Had I done as he suggested and gone back to my room, I would have still given him a bad review. It would have been better written with fewer typos, and (2) To suggest you are going to have a conference in which social media is being discussed and championed and to restrict the use of those social media is simply unwise. I’m a it disappointed that you covered what everyone else had to say about an incident in which I was very much involved, but you did not cover any of my key points, the most important are: (1) There were other live bloggers covering Steve. He objected to me not because I was live blogging but because I gave him a bad review. Had I done as he suggested and gone back to my room, I would have still given him a bad review. It would have been better written with fewer typos, and (2) To suggest you are going to have a conference in which social media is being discussed and championed and to restrict the use of those social media is simply unwise.

]]>