Liveblogging – Is it worth it?by
I’ve done a few live blogs in my time… well maybe about 3 or 4, the most “valuable” being the live blog of Matthew Good‘s living room performance back in August [Miss604]. Seth Godin recently made some valid points about liveblogging as a medium – something he observed at a recent conference.
Compare these liveblog posts to posts written an hour later, ones that digest and reflect and chunk the information. These are deliberately designed to inform the reader, not to remind the writer.
I don’t mean to pick on the medium. I think it’s incredibly valuable–for the poster. We’re finding a growing dichotomy now, between blogs that help the reader and blogs that helps the writer. [Seth Godin]
It’s definitely difficult to relay information on the go, it’s basically rapid-fire note taking. I find that I type a lot of inside jokes when I’m liveblogging, things that could either be better explained with a post-mortem or left out entirely in a recap. What I find most valuable about liveblogging is the instant feedback and interaction with readers. For the evening with Matt Good people could ask questions in my comments and I would relay them directly to him, then I would type the answers.
The same thing goes for fellow Crazy Canuck, Alanah, when she liveblogs games on Canucks and Beyond. You get her instant feedback about how she thinks the game is going and comments are wide open for discussion.
Regardless, there is a time and place for everything – sometimes people cannot get to the show, to the conference or the demoCamp01. For that reason, I’ll keep bringing my laptop and have it handy to jot down anything that comes my way, whether it be live, or 10 minutes after the fact. I just hope that this is in fact of merit to the reader.
Update: On a very related note, I will be liveblogging at DemoCamp01 tomorrow – to read more check the Bryght events page, the wiki and John’s post.
3 Comments — Comments Are Closed
It seems like the person who is live-blogging is much like the person who is photographing or videotaping an event: you’re looking at the event through a lens (figuratively when blogging, literally for the other scenarios) that makes your own experience of the event different from if you attended free of media equipment. Still, we bloggers have this innate blogger-lens “How can we blog about this?” mentality so it might not be a huge trade-off.
Personally, if I can’t make it to the event, it’s awfully nice that someone took the trouble, traded-off a little to provide a live blog. I might not be the first to volunteer to do the live-blogging and deal with a handful or tens of comments coming in.
D’oh.. Are you guys bringing the tequila tomorrow, or is it me?
I’ve settled in to ‘the happy medium’ when live-blogging the Canucks. I break it up into 3 periods. That way I’m not rambling every second, but rather analyzing play period-by-period while it’s fresh in my mind.
I am wondering how many people actually read a whole live blog post the next day when they have already seen the game or even if they haven’t. What’s the point? I think most people prefer a 3 paragrah summary of the game, and not a 8000 word rambling. And who is going to sit there and read the live blog when they can’t watch it on tv? That is idiocy. Go buy a satellite dish! What’s the point of covering coverage? 🙂
That is where your live blogging of the Matt Good show makes sense. Only a few people could be there at your place to see it. You only were the means by which a reader could follow the event.
Am i out of line here?