Probably one of the most rewarding aspects of writing is feedback. Positive feedback but also constructive negative feedback. Especially when writing for the Web, feedback often follows instantly in the form of comments.
I just love it when I check on the articles I have published and see that they have received comments. Often, a discussion about an aspect of the article gets going, which can be very productive. Or someone adds an aspects that I had not thought of. Or adds something based on their own experience. Or points me to a connection I was not aware of. Or just complements me on a good article, which makes my day. But I am also grateful for constructive criticism, maybe a viewpoint or resource I missed.
What I can't stand is purely negative feedback that serves no purpose. For example, I got slammed by an anonymous commenter for one typo I had made in a 600-word article. Needless to say, that person's post was riddled with typos. What is the point of such a post? Is it frustration with not being able to publish? Or was that poster just having a bad day? I don't know, but I usually don't give it much thought. And wherever I have the choice, don't post criticism that slams without being constructive.
On the other hand, when I see an article that sheds light on a topic in a new way or brings an important topic to the foreground, I can't stop myself from giving feedback immediately. Either by recommending the writing, passing it on, or leaving a comment for the author.
So, we are indeed lucky that we don't write into a black abyss any more or have to wait weeks or months for feedback (as it was in print days). What do you think, was feedback more constructive when people were forced to send their comments as a well thought-out letter or do you think the spontaneity of comments is preferrable?
Appreciating your comments!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment