Last month, I discussed the relationship between a magazine or Web site and its readers. That relationship can build into a partnership that enriches content. But there's a whole lot more to it than just adding feedback buttons or discussion boards to your stories.

To repeat the key section from last month:
You can tell a lot about a magazine's relationship with its readers by its standing columns and its letters pages. If there are no columns, there's less predictability and warmth. If the magazine doesn't publish letters, it cuts off the feedback that helps a relationship grow. But when there is a relationship, and when the magazine carries out a major redesign or refocus, the letters pages will show the warmth—frequently in the form of heat.

Readers with long memories may remember my October 2001 disContent, in which I criticized the concept that "user-generated content" could substitute for "manufactured" (that is, professionally-written) content. I'm not reversing that stand, but I am suggesting that the right kind of user-generated content can enrich and augment the best professional content, particularly when it results in a dialogue that adds light rather than heat to a topic.

Beyond the Fray
No, I don't mean Slate's "Fray." Rather, consider four key elements of substantive reader dialogues, with the keyword in bold:

Continuing substantive dialogues make sense for substantive stories—not news summaries, gossip, or all the other "content" designed for Web readers' supposed brief attention spans.

Reader contributions that seek to expand on or respond to substantive stories must be signed with real, traceable names. That's nearly universal practice for newspaper and periodical reader contributions, including letters to the editor. A reader may request (and the publication or site may grant) anonymity in the published or posted form for reasons of personal or national security, or to protect whistle-blowing, but not to avoid embarrassment. I believe this is particularly important if content Web sites move to encourage true reader dialogues. Anonymous and pseudonymous feedback, the rule rather than the exception in Web forums, tends to encourage triviality and flame wars. Consider the Fray, slashdot.org, The Gate's reader fora, Salon's Table Talk, ZDNet feedback, or...well, the list goes on. People with something serious to say should be willing to stand behind their statements.

You don't achieve substantive dialogue by automatically posting user feedback. Serious responses should be read by the Web site's editorial staff, shunting fluff and flame off to feedback boards (if you have them) and treating serious discussions seriously. That means reading them, forwarding them to the writer whose work is being discussed, and encouraging that writer to respond. It means allowing for (and welcoming) reader submissions of almost any length. The Web doesn't have page count problems and sometimes it takes 10,000 words to clarify the issues raised by a 700-word article.

Serious commentary should be featured appropriately, with links to the original article and the original author's further thoughts—if any—directly following the reader's submission. This may turn into a chain involving several authors, at which point you've enhanced content not only through reader partnership, but also thanks to the magic of hyperlinks.

Take Advantage of Expert Readers
Why encourage reader commentary and treat it differently than the usual quick feedback? Not to pad your content; that's a self-defeating practice. The best reason is that some readers know as much or more about the subject of an article as your staff and writers. If those readers know that serious commentaries are treated seriously, they may be moved to enrich your pages and expand the understanding and knowledge of other readers. They will take your site at least as seriously as you take their involvement.

Your site will also attract those who care deeply about an area when they see writer-reader dialogues emerge. When I see nonsense written about an area that matters to me on a typical Web site, I'm likely to mutter under my breath and go elsewhere, particularly when investigation suggests that responses would be lost in a muddle of flames and potshots. Conversely, when I learn about an interesting article on a site I haven't visited and find that the site encourages substantive feedback and treats readers seriously, I'll bookmark that site—and, of course, recommend it to others who would find it valuable.

Examples and Problems
The immediate inspiration for this column was a sequence in my 'zine, Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, in "The Access Puzzle: Notes on Scholarly Communication" (October 2002) that included 800 words on the Budapest Open Access Initiative and its FAQ. Peter Suber, who wrote much of that FAQ, wrote a 2,000-word response, which appeared on a topical list, but was also direct feedback to me. The response included thoughtful disagreements with parts of my article and clarified a number of issues related to the FAQ. In the November 2002 issue, I published Suber's response in its entirety and as a single piece, adding another 400 words to respond to a few of his points. The discussion is likely to continue in one form or another.

I won't try to summarize the discussion; few of you would care. The point is that 1,500 or more readers now understand a complex situation better because Suber knew that I invited serious feedback and because I was able to run the lengthy feedback and an author's response (mine, in this case). It wasn't the first time similar dialogues have taken place in my own writing career; it won't be the last.

There's nothing new here in the print world. Many scholarly journals feature letters taking issue with published articles, sometimes as long as the original article and frequently followed by responses from the original writer. Until recently, Stereophile Magazine devoted many pages to frequently-detailed reader comments and writer responses. While the volume has recently ebbed, the spirit remains. Analog Science Fiction and Fact has a "Brass Tacks" section that includes moderately long reader comments on stories (fiction and fact), sometimes followed by writer responses. A number of magazines, newspapers, and other publications not only run lengthy letters when those letters add substance, but also invite readers to submit longer feedback in the form of essays.

Space is always a problem in print periodicals. That's not the case in Web content sites where the problems are attention and organization. Attention, because so many Web sites assume two-minute attention spans and proffer content designed to suit the mentality that finds USA Today too deep. Shallow articles don't encourage thoughtful responses, and the review-and-respond model makes little sense if most feedback boils down to "First!" "Oh yeah?" and "Ditto." Organization, because print models don't always work well in the Web world—and because traditional modes of presenting threaded discussions can make it hard to follow an ongoing discussion.

I'm not putting down slashdot or the Fray. They can both feature worthwhile discussions, but in different ways. The Journal of Electronic Publishing has examples of one approach that seems to work. And it seems likely that there are a multitude of other examples...good and bad.

Reader correspondence is no substitute for professional writing. But readers can enrich professional content, particularly when they're treated seriously. It's not a quick and dirty solution to anything, but it may be a way to make your site more valuable.