<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stupid Strategic Commenting v. Smart Engagement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/</link>
	<description>Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:39:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Amy Gahran on smart engagement &#124; Brewed Fresh Daily</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207946</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Gahran on smart engagement &#124; Brewed Fresh Daily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207946</guid>
		<description>[...] contentious.com - Stupid Strategic Commenting v. Smart Engagement    Posted in Blogging &#124; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] contentious.com - Stupid Strategic Commenting v. Smart Engagement    Posted in Blogging | [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicolas Schriver</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207931</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicolas Schriver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:47:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207931</guid>
		<description>I am totally agree, "commercial comments" are easy to see: "Hi, check this out http://x.com", but this is not at all in the state of mind that bloggers are. In conversation marketing, what is important, it is the value edited by the group of persons participating in the conversation.

I think however, that the fact companies are starting participating in blog conversasions is great, as they can give us some insights about their philosophy and ideas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am totally agree, &#8220;commercial comments&#8221; are easy to see: &#8220;Hi, check this out <a href="http://x.com" rel="nofollow">http://x.com</a>&#8220;, but this is not at all in the state of mind that bloggers are. In conversation marketing, what is important, it is the value edited by the group of persons participating in the conversation.</p>
<p>I think however, that the fact companies are starting participating in blog conversasions is great, as they can give us some insights about their philosophy and ideas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Adams</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207845</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Adams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207845</guid>
		<description>And speaking of FreshBooks... ;)

But seriously — I hear what you're saying, absolutely. We deal with a lot of these things on our own blog, and it's often difficult to decide when to remove the link (or the entire post), because you certainly don't want to censor people; but at the same time you want to foster useful conversation for your readers, not just accumulate comments toward some sort of count.

I do notice the "poaching" of sorts that goes on, too. To be honest, that's never particularly bothered me, just because it's a great metric by which you can judge the folks who resort to it. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And speaking of FreshBooks&#8230; <img src='http://www.contentious.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>But seriously — I hear what you&#8217;re saying, absolutely. We deal with a lot of these things on our own blog, and it&#8217;s often difficult to decide when to remove the link (or the entire post), because you certainly don&#8217;t want to censor people; but at the same time you want to foster useful conversation for your readers, not just accumulate comments toward some sort of count.</p>
<p>I do notice the &#8220;poaching&#8221; of sorts that goes on, too. To be honest, that&#8217;s never particularly bothered me, just because it&#8217;s a great metric by which you can judge the folks who resort to it. <img src='http://www.contentious.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: allan branch</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207807</link>
		<dc:creator>allan branch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207807</guid>
		<description>In today's internet there are so many small startups struggling to keep their head above water.   With the plethora of blogs around, the ability to reach an audience for free is at their fingertips.  While "trolling" sucks, I cannot blame anyone for doing it.  In some cases a troll's comment has helped me find a great resource, but again, like you mentioned its spam.  Tisk tisk you trolls, bad trolls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In today&#8217;s internet there are so many small startups struggling to keep their head above water.   With the plethora of blogs around, the ability to reach an audience for free is at their fingertips.  While &#8220;trolling&#8221; sucks, I cannot blame anyone for doing it.  In some cases a troll&#8217;s comment has helped me find a great resource, but again, like you mentioned its spam.  Tisk tisk you trolls, bad trolls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant D. Griiffiths</title>
		<link>http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207800</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant D. Griiffiths</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.contentious.com/2007/12/18/stupid-strategic-commenting-v-smart-engagement/#comment-1207800</guid>
		<description>I actually consider such dribble spam and usually don't approve the comments.  And I usually mark such commenters as spam for any future comments they might leave.  One I have been getting a lot lately is this, "I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I will consider it."  It is obvious it is spam.  

Like you, I prefer that the conversation continue and that it be constructive and beneficial to those who are participating.  Thanks for your post and I hope some of these companies take what you say to heart and actually contribute something we can use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually consider such dribble spam and usually don&#8217;t approve the comments.  And I usually mark such commenters as spam for any future comments they might leave.  One I have been getting a lot lately is this, &#8220;I don&#8217;t understand what you are trying to say, but I will consider it.&#8221;  It is obvious it is spam.  </p>
<p>Like you, I prefer that the conversation continue and that it be constructive and beneficial to those who are participating.  Thanks for your post and I hope some of these companies take what you say to heart and actually contribute something we can use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
