yelvington.com

Mark Potts runs through the details of Philly.com's reborn commenting system, which takes a good-enough approach to the complex problem of encouraging conversation in a world where an unfortunate percentage of us are idiots. As I've said previously, pseudonymity is a reasonable Middle Way.

I've been down the Real Names path. It's not a bad one. But my next-door neighbor in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, was one of several hundred Tom Johnsons in the area, and my next-door neighbor in Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota, was one of several hundred Richard Johnsons. Sometimes handles can be more precise.

Robert Putnam's theories about the formation of social capital are foundational to much of what I've been focusing on for the last several years, especially the 2005 launch of BlufftonToday.com. Blogging for the Readership Institute at Northwestern University, Rich Gordon describes troubling new findings in Putnam's latest research, and declares:

Putnam's research ought to be a clarion call for citizens, journalists and media companies in cities, towns and neighborhoods across the United States. "Bowling Alone" made clear that declines in social capital were harming both communities and their local media. The new research reinforces the need, especially in our most diverse communities, to build new ways for people to connect with one another. It seems clear that journalists and media organizations have a role to play in the process - and that online community-building may be at least part of the solution.

Hear hear!

Neil Thurman of City University, London, has published a review of the ways British news media are using the tools of interactivity -- "user generated content initiatives," as he calls it. In many cases it's been a struggle and the outcomes have not met everyone's hopes.

Reading through it, I was struck by a recurring theme in his interviews with UK journalism executives. It goes like this: How can I add some of this user-generated filler to my soup without losing control of the flavor?

You can, of course, if you're willing to do the work. But it may come at a cost. As you continue to produce the same old soup, somebody else may be inventing a whole new cuisine next door in a new kind of process where authority and power are broadly shared, and you're not even part of it.

That's exactly what's been happening to the newspaper business, of course. In our efforts to maintain traditions and protect old brands we've missed opportunity after opportunity.

Jonathan Dube points out that the Washington Post, CBS News and Newsweek all have added comment capabilities to story pages. I don't think comments are the best way to build community, comments are infinitely better than no conversation at all. We've come quite a way from the days when editors would look at you and say, in all seriousness: "You mean you let them say anything they want?"

If interactivity is one of the four keys to a successful news website, don't we need community management skills? Recently the Online News Association published a study by Max Magee that "attempts to define which skills and intangible characteristics are most important in online newsrooms." More precisely, the study reflects the current assumptions and working experiences of online news managers and producers -- where we are today, not necessarily where we should be.

The study reflects the receding importance of technical expertise -- HTML and Photoshop are still important, of course, but skills generally common to copy editors (multitasking, attention to detail, headline writing, etc.), rose to the top of the list and more geeky skills such as PHP and CSS sank to the bottom. Among people working as producers at newspaper websites, "cultivating online communities" ranked 18th out of 35 skills, with only 52 percent saying it's something they do daily. Among producers at news websites not affiliated with legacy media, that same skill ranks 13th, with 70.7 percent saying it's part of the daily routine.

I've noticed several postings recently on the various journalism job boards reflecting an apparent higher profile for online community leadership. Titles vary. The Army Times is looking for a "Community Conversation Editor," a title that I like, but the "editor" word is a bit imperial.

We're currently calling a similar job "community content coordinator," in which I stumble a bit over the word "content." Maybe "community interaction coordinator" would be better. Noodling on a job description I came up with these components:

• Solicit contributions from the community through the website and other channels.
• Serve as a "Spotter," photographing people at community events and handing out promotional cards.
• Recruit, train and organize volunteer/intern "Spotters."
• Plan Spotter coverage, maintaining a calendar of events to be covered.
• Make presentations to community groups about the newspaper and website.
• Serve as lead "host" for the local blogspace, starting and participating in conversations.
• Recruit, train and organize community "expert" bloggers.
• Moderate and manage online conversations as necessary.
• Work proactively with reporters to help them engage in community interaction.
• Work proactively to identify Web content for print production, in close collaboration with the Editor.
• Support end users as they engage with the website.

Enough to keep anybody busy, and hardly a copy editor role. But what have I left out?

At the Online Journalism Association conference in Washington earlier this month, I heard several people say too many newspapers are grasping at video and because it looks like the easy path to multimedia. Now comes Paul Bradshaw in the UK, blogging the same point of view.

Like Bradshaw, I was puzzled by a report on journalism.co.uk last week decribing how Trinity Mirror plans to "re-launch all its regional and local newspaper websites by the end of the year to refocus on interactive elements" -- because the article goes on to describe nothing but video plans for the "interactive" website.

Unless your users are producing it, "interactivity" just isn't the right word. Video is not only linear, watching video is fundamentally passive. At least print requires the consumer to take some sort of action in order to acquire each word.

Don't get me wrong; I think news sites ought to be equipping themselves to do "professional" video. I bought a $150 Chinese video camera a couple of weeks ago and I've been showing it to pretty much everybody who will look and listen. I took it to the ONA conference. I didn't shoot very much -- the place was far too noisy and lighting was poor. But I'm convinced that we're at a breakthrough point in terms of price/capability.

The real revolution will be in video produced by the people formerly known as consumers. And I think that's just getting started.