1938Media provocateur and curmudgeon Loren Feldman had this to say about Disqus, Phreadz and Seesmic, startups trying to make a go of comment conversations (the latter two via video):

Now, it’s fair to mention that Loren likes to get mileage out of bursting bubbles (and the world of Web 2.0 is full of them) but I think it’s fair to tease out his arguments.

- Bloggers don’t care about comments; it’s all about the blogger’s vanity. For any blogger that is sensitive to the idea that s/he’s speaking to an actual audience, comments do matter. (For sploggers, they might be completely superfluous) If you’re blogging and no one’s listening, aren’t you just journaling?

- Most comments are one-dimensional and lame (”I agree with you! What a great post! Here’s a link to my Website!”). Yes, maybe some are. But it’s a law of numbers. For every 100 readers, 10 will comment. 5 will leave spammy/meaningless comments, and a handful will leave insightful comments, some of which are in response to previous insightful comments. The total number of comments might be meaningless, but the number of insightful comments gives a clear indication to how many people you’re really reaching and connecting with.

- Who has time to comment? Well, it’s clear Loren’s not a commenter! But plenty are. And some frequent commenters develop a following of their very own on certain blogs, regardless whether the blogger has the time to interact with them or not.

What’s clear, though, at least to me, is that there the reason blog comments are superficial, and conversation attempts so clumsy (via “here’s a link to my blog” entries), is that there hasn’t been a platform for them. There’s a latent need for blog readers to interact with the blogger and other commenters, and, like most latent needs, the solution isn’t necessarily always well-articulated by would-be beneficiaries.

For that reason, I like attempts like Disqus and SezWho to thread blog conversations and follow them across blogs, and even Phreadz & Seesmic for bringing the video dimension to commenting.

We at Dyalogues also understand that blog readers are not all passive, not just providing feedback and “vanity votes” to the blogger. A small number are interested in deeper interaction. The blog post is only a springboard for discussion. The question becomes: where and how does that conversation take place?

I’d like to point out an example of the sort of conversations that are happening across blogs that demonstrate the market, if you will, for dyalogues.

1. On Feb 12, Glenn Kelman, CEO of real estate startup, Redfin, compares Silicon Valley, where he spent 16 years, to Seattle, where he’s based in now.
2. Three days later, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch writes a response on his blog. Readers interested in first reading the blog post he’s responding to must follow a link to Glenn’s blog. Then they come back and read Michael’s response.
3. Glenn finds out about Michael’s post (maybe via an email from Michael, maybe by monitoring his trackback pings, maybe a tip from a friend who follows TechCrunch) and posts a response on his blog. Of course, the only people who understand the conversation absolutely clearly are those who follow both TechCrunch and the Redfin Blog, and have a pretty good memory. Everyone else has several browser windows/tabs open as they weave through the conversation chronologically.
4. Michael finds out about Glenn’s response post (again, we have no idea how) and posts a link to it at the bottom of his original post.

If this sounds complicated, it’s because it is. It’s not, by any means, an impossible conversation to follow - it’s just a bit clumsy because blogging platforms are not designed for deep interaction between bloggers. It can feel a little like an online scavenger hunt to follow the conversation.

This is where Dyalogues shines. Dyalogues is a web platform for two-way interchanges between two bloggers. The dyalogue starts with a premise and an initiator, and then proceeds in a conversation-like pattern. It’s easy to read, and the system handles notifying both parties about when the other person has responded, and when it’s time to write a reply. The conversation can proceed as quickly as the participants want it to.

We hope Michael, Glenn, and other bloggers take the time to engage with each other via a dyalogue or two, and have a permanent, easy-to-read record of it with which to share with their readers, both current and new.