![]() |
| "Expressman" by Norman Rockwell (Metropolitan Museum of Art) |
Most papers don't post them.
Not that the negative comments were uninteresting. They were, but in a bad way. You couldn't run a story about a 6-year-old getting hit by a bus without having the lad taunted in the comments. To read them was to flip over a rock and expose the underside of human life, better left hidden.
Despite such drawbacks, I allow comments on my blog because they seem to encourage engagement, and vetting them is not particularly difficult. I learn things — facts, ideas, perspectives, arguments — from reading the comments, generally. Sometimes I'm torn whether something is so toxic and crazy that its entertainment value outweighs the unpleasantness of reading it.
I vet them rigorously. I don't want to let EGD devolve into a carnival of cruelty and snark. There is enough of that everywhere else.
But they are valuable. Comments alert me to typos — that's important in a one man show (though it really isn't; I have you).
Sometimes I get sucked into personalities. I don't mind people telling me I'm mistaken, more or less politely — if they're telling me I'm mistaken because I'm a idiot, well, bad enough that I have to read it, it's funny that someone would think I'd want to share the news on my own blog. I'm trying to hide the fact that I'm an idiot, not ballyhoo it.
Sometimes I just don't feel like having a topic explored. The Israeli policy on hanging Palestinians seems patently racist, mind-boggling and grotesque, but that doesn't mean I want someone to expound upon it at length under an unrelated post. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood for a certain topic. It's my show, and I can call the tunes.
Sometimes I just don't feel like having a topic explored. The Israeli policy on hanging Palestinians seems patently racist, mind-boggling and grotesque, but that doesn't mean I want someone to expound upon it at length under an unrelated post. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood for a certain topic. It's my show, and I can call the tunes.
It's always a judgment call. I don't like out-of-the-blue comments, but sometimes an unrelated comment is valuable. Under yesterday's Ozempic post, a reader complained about these bothersome McAfee ads that pop up on the paper's web site. I asked him to send me an email, and forwarded it to the paper's CEO and the editor-in-chief. Both responded — we value our readers — and said that this is a real issue, that other people have complained, including staffers, that solutions were being discussed in meetings, and they were on it. So hooray us, right?
Sometimes readers will be inspired to go on in-depth personal reminiscences — we're mostly old, remember — and I tend to post those, though I'm not sure what they add to the conversation. When I reflect on my past, I begin by assuming, correctly, that nobody but nobody cares what happened to me, and I have to find a way to slather on enough art to make them care. Others give it a shot, with varying degrees of success, and I don't see a reason not to share them.
Lately, when people sign up, in my little note thanking them, I invite the new readers to comment — sincerely. I do appreciate people taking the time to read, and to comment, and feel a piece has resonated when it gets 20 or 30 comments and not just two or three. If you haven't commented yet, please do. It's fun, apparently.
There have been, since the blog began in 2013, exactly 9,588 posts, and over 60,000 comments. Or an average of about half a dozen per post. That isn't bad. The record, I believe, is my ill-starred 2023 introduction to Aldi, which drew 138 remarks, most of them pro-Aldi. I think comments add to the experience that is everygoddamnday.com. So long as you take the time to write them, I will take the time to read them, and post all that bring something to the table, and more than a few that don't.




