Final Summation

This semester I tracked the public reader feedback on the Austin American Statesman's website. This reader feedback came in the form of comments, which the publication not only allows, but supports. Public reader feedback is a great way to enhance the readers experience and bring the readers closer to a publication. There does not seem to be a community of regular commenters, and there really are not a lot of commenters on this site. There are some comments and occasionally many comments. This publication is really just starting to take advantage of public reader feedback. They are moving towards incorporating much more feedback into their website and in the future they'll be a more user friendly institution.

Promoting public reader feedback is a great tool for any publication. By allowing readers to comment, it lets them feel more connected to the publication. Seeing their name on the official website makes them a part of it. Also, readers who comment, will come back to the same article, in order to see if anyone has responded to their comment. This creates a habit of returning to the publication and cements occasional readers as regular readers. Having comments also expands the articles. Here's an example of an article, in the Statesman, where the comments tell an entirely different side of the story, though I can't be sure of their validity. In response to the article BATPAC Endorses Meeker, Morrison, by Sarah Coppola on March 18, 2008, there is a local politcs debate about the candidates endorsement by BATPAC. Foes and fans of BATPAC bring forth far more information than is mentioned in the initial article. They mention so much, and I am so unfamiliar with this particular election and the validity of these statements, that I couldn't even begin to give examples without accidentally taking a large bias. An interested party would really need to read through the article, and the 28 lengthy comments, in order to make up their own mind. Sometimes, it's not a full on debate that follows an article, but just one comment which gives additional useful information to the reader. The article John McCain’s Daughter Loves Indie Rock, by Joe Gross on March 20, 2008, is only one sentence long (though two if you count the title, which needs to be read in order to understand the article) and reads "Attention Transmission promoter Graham Williams: She is a huge Dead Milkmen fan." There is only one comment, but it's more informative, and longer, than the article itself. It states "By Michael Corcoran. Joe- You are aware that Sid McCain was, for several years, a publicist for Virgin Records, I believe? I think she was at Arista before that." Comments do not always give the reader more positive information. You'll often find comments that are just useless banter. In response to the article Former Farmers Market Site For Sale Again, by M.B. Taboada on April 24, 2008, there is a comment that reads "S wrote: Curse the man who denies me my Brentwood Tavern Mullet Burger!!" Though it was on topic, this comment doesn't give the reader more useful information. You'll find debates within the comments that get pretty aggressive. Every once in a while, you will run into someone who has a radically negative view they'd like to share. It's not always clear whether a person like this is serious or just trying to rile people up. Either way, it does not add positive content to the article. There's a prime example of this type of situation in response to the article What Do You Think Of The Required Reading In Your Child’s School? Is The Material Age Appropriate?, by an unlisted author on March 25, 2008. Throughout the comments, there is someone named Bob, who posts a slew of negative responses. Here are a few of the choice excerpts "The children of today are practically all retarded compared to when I was just starting elementary school.", "Kids that use “text speak” on papers should be throttled", and "If those damn kids do not get out of the road, let Darwinish weed them out! In fact, I think if you can hit them and make their mothers cry, you get an extra ten points. Twenty if the mother is giving birth to another one of her twenty children when it happens." (It's also worth noting that he posted that last one three times in a row.). The responses to this article are enough to turn off most readers. Even with the negative comments that will inevitably pop up, it is useful for the site to allow comments. There are more positive comments than negative, and the good out weighs the bad.

The Austin American Statesman has recently given more attention to enhancing public reader feedback. When I started tracking the website, it did allow readers to comment on every article, but didn't do much else to promote response. The only way to know that you could even comment on an article was to happen to notice the option at the bottom of an article, or notice the comments below, if there happened to be any. They did list how many comments an article had next to the link for it, but only about half the time. It wasn't so easy to track the comments initially, though the website obviously would not expect someone to be tracking them and wouldn't be catering to that idea. Now the site has added new features that make it much easier to comment, and much more obvious that the option is open. Right on the front page, though it is at the bottom, they have the most commented on and most recommended link. This feature is accompanied by a list of the top commented articles. They also started a section for reader's blogs. This is a great tool to get readers to come to your site everyday. On the front page they have a link for the most commented on and most recommended reader's blogs, with a listing of the most commented on, and it has pictures. The site has been using more videos as well. It's more interesting for the readers to see more than one medium. They now allow readers to create a profile, so that you can see who's who, when looking at comments. Before the last few weeks, commenters could use any name they like. This will crack down on useless banter and other negative comments, because people won't be able to be anonymous. Since the launch of the new features, which has only been around a week or so, there seems to be an increase in comments, but not a large increase. I do expect to see a larger increase in comments in the coming months.

Currently there doesn't seem to be any community of commenters. When reading over the comments, you do not see the same names over and over. This could be due to the fact that people were able to post under any name they please, but if there was in fact a community of commenters, people would want to post under the same name, and be recognized as a regular commenter. There aren't overlapping commenters, even on articles with similar topics that were written around the same time. There are regularly articles about local politics, often about the same officials and the same elections. The comments seem to be from different people on different articles. There are a lot of music articles on the site. Austin, Texas is one of the music capitols of the US, and I covered this publication during South By South West, which is the biggest American music event of the year. The music articles are in the music portion of their entertainment section, which is called Austin360.com. They did receive comments on these articles, but they also seemed to be different commenters. Even on the articles that were on similar subjects written right after each other, the commenters were different people. I expect this to change with the new promotion of reader involvement. Certainly the readers who are blogging will get involved in commenting regularly, and a community will form.

The Austin American Statesman has just taken the steps towards building a community of readers who are involved with the publication. Through their new features, the reader blogs, the most commented and most recommended lists, and the easily accessed promotion of commenting, the reader involvement will grow. This semester I tracked a publication that allowed comments, but did not particularly support them. It would be interesting to do an additional investigation of their public reader feedback, over the next three months. A comparison between the two would most definitely show the difference between a publication that allows feedback and a publication that supports feedback. I expect the reader involvement to grow exponentially, and I think it will be a positive step for both the Statesman and their readers.