Comments on: Liveblogging: How do you like it?

By: Kim Krause Berg

Kim Krause Berg — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:20:09 +0000

Yes.

You are like a duck. Calm up top, but paddling like hell underneath the water.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Thu, 24 May 2007 15:59:04 +0000

@Kim: “you take time to review your notes and edit them into something readable.”
Are you referring to that 20 minute interval between sessions when I’m freaking out and rearranging things like a crazy person? You must be.
@Stephen: I very much appreciate the critique. Do you find note-style recaps more useful then (ala SE Roundtable) or would you prefer a more thoughtful post days after the session took place? What would be your preference?
I guess our feeling (or at least my personal feeling) is that you can get note-style recaps from a variety of places, which each blogger focusing on different points. The first three rows at any session are typically filled with bloggers who are jotting down their quick notes and publishing them. We try to provide a more comprehensive look, however, I completely understand you’re feeling that they’re a bit verbose. They can get extremely verbose! I’ll be more aware of that in the future. Thanks again for the comment.

By: Stephen Ward

Stephen Ward — Thu, 24 May 2007 13:53:24 +0000

To be quite honest, the liveblogging posts are the only ones on your feed that I habitually skip, Bruce. They have a tendency to be dauntingly verbose and generally lacking the, shall we say, density of useful information that I’ve come to expect. For those who care about the minutia of the goings on at the conferences, they certainly provide a thorough recap. However, for those of us who just want tips and news, they can be quite lacking.

Not to sound overly critical, of course. I love this blog and am not about to unsubscribe no matter how many liveblogging posts I have to skip.

By: Kim Krause Berg

Kim Krause Berg — Thu, 24 May 2007 03:33:10 +0000

The idea of liveblogging so that I would remember a session later has never even occurred to me. I do it because it’s my job for SearchEngineRoundTable and what I agreed to do for that website (and for Barry.) The purpose is to provide some idea of what was covered in sessions for those who don’t have the luxury of being there themselves. Being in that position myself more often than not, liveblogging is a way I pay back those who have covered conferences before me.
For sure, some liveblogging posts are hard to follow. That comes with the territory. Your work, Lisa, is always top notch coverage because you take time to review your notes and edit them into something readable.
A “blogging pool”, as what you, me and some of our friends do together makes the experience fun, even though it’s work
As an aside, seeing Seth in person on a panel at SES NYC was really exciting for me. He’s a gifted speaker.

By: Joost Schrier

Joost Schrier — Thu, 24 May 2007 00:35:00 +0000

I guess everybody has his own approach towards liveblogging and Seth Godin could certainly be right (he usually is), but it all hangs on your intention when writing. If(!) you are conscious of who you are writing for you can tell people what’s going on while liveblogging just like when you would take notes and told someone else what it was about afterwards. The advantage of liveblogging would be the fact that you can add the high school cafeteria stuff

Personally, I gobled up your accounts of the previous 34 sessions you attended and think I got a pretty good idea of what they were about. But I wasn’t there so I’m gonna have to take your word for it. Maybe you should ask someone to read your posts right after a session and see if they understand what you’re rambling on about? Preferably someone the rest of us can trust…