When commenters are your friends

One of the key features of a site said to be fully web 2.0 is the ability for readers to post comments and rate the content. Often, especially on news sites, the comments are so depressingly inane and/or frighteningly confrontational that, as I read somewhere recently (anyone recognize this?), you think the planet would have been better left to the dolphins. [Edited to add: Thanks to Graham F. Scott for pointing out that this came from Ivor Tossell’s (sadly, last) Friday column at the Globe & Mail.]

But opening up your site content to comments can have its benefits, too. It’s a good way to gather UGC, and a good way to gauge public opinion on some topics. And commenters can often serve as secondary fact-checkers (or primary, if your site content isn’t filtered through fact-checking), highlighting any errors or oversights that may have made it through the editing process.

As an extreme case in point, take this how-to article on rock climbing from Canadian site askmen.com, which although it’s over a year old has been going viral in the climbing community over the past few days. I’m a climber too, and let me tell you, the writer of this article could use a refresher in proper research. The lack of quotes or citations will jump out at anyone in the business. But it’s the succession of one-star reviews begging askmen.com editors to remove it for its lack of factual accuracy that really stands out.

Any article with this many negative reviews – and zero positive ones – needs to be looked at again and either edited or removed. The same goes for the more common situation where a commenter has pointed out even a minor error. And make sure to thank them for taking the time to share their knowledge with you.

What do you think about comments? What percentage do you find actually useful?

[Edited to add: Nice job at askmen.com: they’ve updated the article and let the commenters know that it’s improved – they even asked for input. Note that the URL and title have stayed the same, which is important for a) people who’ve bookmarked it (whether personally or through social tools) and b) Google.]

Tips on making the most of UGC

Remember JPG, the crowdsourced photography magazine that was killed a few months ago and then brought back to life? Its editor-in-chief, Laura Brunow Miner, posted yesterday on Folio’s blog on her conviction that user-generated content isn’t dead like many have been saying – instead, we just need to be careful to use it in the right way and for the right purposes:

As an editor who’s spent most of her time with community created content, here’s what I think about user generated content as it applies to magazines: It has its place, which varies from publication to publication. Virtually all periodicals have some form of it, whether it’s letters to the editor, caption contests or photos-of-the-month. And virtually no magazines feature entirely crowdsourced content, though JPG came the closest with all content having been submitted through jpgmag.com and subsequently edited.

Miner goes on to offer useful tips on building your audience – and your content creators – through driving UGC, and makes the always-worth-repeating point that your print and web audiences are not the same: while they may overlap somewhat, you can never be sure of who has read what.

I’d like to add to Miner’s tips with one key point: just as you shouldn’t worry about “cannibalizing” your print product to build up your website (readers choose the platform first), when soliciting stories from readers, don’t worry about people seeing it on the website first and then it following in print months later (as will happen with long print lead times). Show readers that submissions online do make it into print and they’ll be that much more likely to contribute.

Can UGC last?

User-generated content has been all the rage lately – not only because of the success of sites such as YouTube but because many publishers see it as the answer to many of their problems, a way to bolster content and boost pageviews without significant investment on the part of their staff.

However, a recent article on Folio discusses a report that says UGC may not be as valuable as was once thought. The challenge? Monetizing content that advertisers may be reluctant to sponsor due to its unpredictable nature.

My suggestion: experiment with UGC, but don’t take on any major projects unless they fit one of two conditions: either the sponsorship has been sold already, or the project works so well with your brand and site that you think it’s worth the effort overall. Don’t jump on the UGC bandwagon without having a solid plan in place.

How Stephen Harper has helped the CBC

Those of you tapped into Canadian politics (and what a week it’s been) may have noticed the unreal amount of comments being posted on the major news sites. CBC.ca even posted an article about user engagement on their site, and apparently their traffic has been higher this week than during the Olympics. As of Wednesday afternoon, when the article went online, they had already had over 20,000 comments – and I’m sure there are far more than that now.

Just goes to show, if you provide people with a place to talk about the issues that concern them, they will come. It’s just a matter of matching your content with the right group and topic.

Books to read: Crowdsourcing

Threadless. iStockphoto. Wikipedia. Kiva. Google. What do these sites have in common? They all tap into the power of the masses, in a process journalist Jeff Howe termed crowdsourcing and originally wrote about in a 2006 article for Wired.

Howe has now come out with a book about the phenomenon, Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. I just finished it and in my opinion, it’s essential reading for anyone who hopes to develop online communities or make use of user-generated content – two strategies that are top priorities these days for many magazines and their websites. On the one hand, it’s inspirational – Howe describes the path to success of the sites (or communities) mentioned above as well as others you may not have heard of, such as InnoCentive, an organization that provides crowdsourced R&D to companies such as Procter & Gamble. But the book is also a cautionary tale of how community-building can go wrong, especially when the primary motivation is profit. (Which isn’t to say making money can’t be a successful secondary goal.)

Howe also passes on a lot of useful information, such as the experience of Linda Parker, the online communities editor at the Cincinnati Enquirer. When discussing soliciting reader submissions, Howe writes:

“It used to read, ‘Be a Citizen Journalist,'” Parker says. “And no one ever clicked on it. Then we said, ‘Tell Us Your Story,’ and still nothing. For some reason, ‘Get Published’ were the magic words.”

I love this proof of the value of experimentation and how the smallest things can make a huge difference.

In short, you should buy the book and read it. Then please, let me know what you think.

Meredith to create its own social network

According to a story in Mediaweek, Meredith is working on its own social network, Mixingbowl.com, to launch in November. As you might imagine, it’s focused on food, including recipe sharing and meal and event planning.

The interesting thing here is that they’re not hosting the new community under one of their existing brands—they’re creating a new site entirely focused on user-generated content. Here’s how they describe it:

“With the branded sites—all the different needs people come to us for, creating a very pure environment that looks and feels like it’s built for the consumer—that kind of authenticity of intent is necessary,” said Dan Hickey, Meredith’s vp, digital content. Mixingbowl, by contrast, is “really about the world of peer-to-peer recipes. It’s a social network around meals and meal planning.”

Meredith isn’t the first to create a new online brand separate from its existing print brands—a lot of magazine sites have gone back and forth between a branded site that fits with the print model and a (usually) portal site that incorporates branded content: think iVillage or MochaSofa. What’s interesting here is the Web 2.0 nature of this project as opposed to the editorial-driven ones of the past. I think it can work—there’s certainly room for social networks driven by food—but the question is whether the quality of content can lure people away from sites like epicurious.com and allrecipes.com (both of which already have some social features).

Thoughts on user-generated content

Mediabistro.com has posted an overview of a session on user-generated content from the American Magazine Conference. I recommend clicking through (it’s not long) to read about some of the successes (and problems) sites such as National Geographic and This Old House have had utilizing UGC. One of my favourite points is from Edward Grinnan of Guideposts: “If I could give you one piece of advice about user-generated content… If you can figure out a way to get a dog into the content, you will get your numbers up.” (Cats work too, by the way.)

Another launch at Transcon: more.ca

There must be something in the water up at Yonge and Sheppard these days; hot on the heels of the relaunch of both styleathome.com and canadiangardening.com, new-ish magazine More has launched its first full website. (Previous to this launch, the domain hosted a bare-bones site mostly geared toward subscriptions.)

According to a press release from Transcontinental, the site will be introducing a number of user-generated content (UGC) features over the coming months, including viral tools, blogs, user-submitted stories and user-created reviews of books, restaurants, travel and movies. This in addition to current site features like a daily blog, forums and a registration-required community system called MyMore (similar to MyCL on canadianliving.com and My Home & Garden Network on styleathome.com and canadiangardening.com).

One feature I like is the ability to rate content as well as commenting on it; while you have to be registered and logged in to comment, it’s not necessary for rating. I also like the most viewed/most comments/highest rated box in the right-hand column; I’ve always found it very clickable on thestar.com and I’m sure more.ca readers will feel the same way.

I look forward to seeing how more.ca develops its community features and whether their plans for UGC resonate with readers.