Plus, we are all learning from each other, different viewpoints, different beliefs and different backgrounds. It’s always interesting to see who comes out with what and sometimes there’s a juicy tidbit of information that sparks that next big idea or works in a project you might be handling at a later date. So, I tend to think there is a positive outcome to participating and commenting.

And as Sean points out, letters to the editor have been around for years. I used to write a lot of them, and now I mostly write comments instead. They are faster, provide a link boost, and the acceptance rate is nearly 100%.

I still do write letters–actually got one in the NY Times last year. But I do a lot more blog/website comments, as well as discussion list participation, which serves to firmly brand me to the same audience over and over, as opposed to comment posts, which talk to the specific audience for that post.

As an infrequent blog reader, and a even more infrequent commentator, by asking myself what makes an article worth responding to it besides all that, I came to the conclusion that it’s neccesary

1) That I have enough time to
a) read the full post,
b) read all of the corresponding comments,
c) find something not mentioned yet,
d) want to share my thoughts,
c) write an own comment, and of course
2) That I’m in the mood, provided
3) That I’m a forthcoming person.

Since time is precious, and I’m quite busy most of the day, I have to decide whether to spend my time on this article or on some other one, provided I can spare some time.
This doesn’t change just because I’m stirred up by a subject. Sometimes I feel I would have something to say but I just don’t have the time.

Someone’s mood can be changed by a subject, but only the flexible upper 10 percent of it. So, if you simply don’t want to participate, no subject in the world can make you change your mind completely.

Finally, you have to be somewhat talkative by nature. I am. But only if I have time and if I’m in the mood.

1) They feel strongly (very strongly) about something.
2) They feel they’ll be heard in the community.

For comments to exist, there must be a viable community. For comments to thrive, there must be the concept of someone listening–possibly acting. Comments by themselves are nothing but a big tree falling into a big sea, when no one is around.

And yes…the concept needs to be powerful enough to stir up emotions in people. The more you’re mad/happy/sad/ whatever, about a topic, the more chances you have of getting a comment.

If you go back to newspapers of yore, you’ll find your answer lies not in the blogosphere, but in the stamp-licking readers of yesterday (and today)

-Sean D’Souza

I appreciate you bringing up this nuance, but I still don’t believe Dubner is asking a different–let alone “opposite”–question. Rather, his question is “…what kind of person comments on a blog, and why?” So, and please correct me if I’m wrong, it seems you’re suggesting that by not explicitly saying that we were also in search of qualitative variables about the commenters themselves, that we’re not every bit as interested as Dubner in why “lurkers,” would-be commenters and commenters (habitual or otherwise) do what they do as we are in the content that spurs them to comment (or not) in the first place.

(Sorry, even I had to re-read that last bit

In fact, I’d argue that Dubner’s question didn’t do much to address the role of blog content itself as a key variable in all of this, as he chose to ask only about the people themselves and not their interaction with content. When he says the following, it’s not implicit that he’s only seeking people who don’t comment, just that his data will be skewed unless those who don’t generally comment do: “…regular commenters will be overrepresented in the comments — unless, of course, a whole bunch of you who never comment decide to go ahead and log in and, in the comments section, tell us why you never comment. Or why other people do.”

So, what’s the point? The point is that, in both blog posts, THE COMMENTERS themselves chose to address the question the same way: from, as you say, the bookends.

As anyone who runs a heavily trafficked blog knows, comments are more the exception than the rule. In other words, commenters-to-readers, the rest being automatically pegged as “lurkers” (nothing wrong with that) is a fuzzy, correlational metric for the blog’s ability to engage its readers. And, ultimately, figuring out these variables from the readers’ perspective was the goal of both blog posts.

Of course, Dubner’s more than welcome to comment here and let us know if he agrees with my assessment.