Okay, start here. I had an idea for an organic method of collecting arguments, pro and con, about divorcing real estate commissions. Using a PHP form, I could collect user-submitted links to apposite articles, then show them all in an “included” PHP file in each post about divorced commissions. That PHP file would be available to be included on other sites, as well, although I don’t think anyone has done this.
I’ve manually built this kind of file before, for ongoing news stories and for breaking news stories we cover in multiple posts. The difference here was eliciting contributions from readers in a semi-automated fashion.
Last night in a comment, Barrett Niehus of 4MySales – Real Estate Investment and Marketing commended me for having added a Wiki to BloodhoundBlog.
Except I hadn’t done that. I wasn’t even sure what Barrett was talking about. By email, I asked for clarification, and this was his response:
The Wiki comment just relates to the Bloodhound’s ability to add posted links from your online form to the list that you are creating on your blog post. For your readers (me included) this adds another way for them to participate in your blog. I think it is a great feature that few other bloggers use which makes your blog even more unique.
For a one-off post, it made a certain kind of sense. But imagine the same idea expressed globally, for every post. Now that’s an insanely great idea.
I planted a seed, really just a way of seeking something like permanence in the evanescent world of weblog posts. Barrett saw more than I did, a little bit of that Web 2.0-ishness, and his email led me back to see a tiny sprout springing up from the earth. Tonight I’ve nurtured it into a little sapling. I honestly don’t know if people will use something like this, but it seems to me to be a fantastic way to make BloodhoundBlog’s posts more comprehensive and informative.
What am I talking about? New code that will permit you to amend any post on BHB with supplemental links. If you look at Lani’s post from earlier tonight, you’ll see that she and I have both provided additional links about the newly-discovered iPhone bug.
This is the way an amended post looks:
For a post without supplemental links, you’ll see this instead:
So I put it to you? Is this something you can see yourself using? You’ll find the link to the site-suggestion form at the bottom of every post. See if it strikes you as a useful way to advance the conversation on BloodhoundBlog.
To thank Barrett for pushing me in the right direction, help him add content to his viral marketing book project.
Here’s a fun idea: When the Inman Innovator nominations came up, I wasn’t sure what we do that would qualify as an innovation in someone else’s eyes. As far as I’m concerned, the innovations we undertake here are effected in bright, shiny prose. I’m very conservative about technology, which is why we don’t have a lot of third-party gewgaws in the sidebar. But we have a whole lot of custom PHP in the innards of this hound. It was only just tonight that I realized that that stuff is innovation, too. The best part, from my point of view, is that this new code is a technical innovation that advances the intellectual innovations of BloodhoundBlog. That’s what matters.
Technorati Tags: blogging, Inman, Inman Connect, real estate, real estate marketing
Lani Anglin says:
LOVE LOVE LOVE!
July 23, 2007 — 10:57 pm
Barrett Niehus says:
Greg,
Thanks for the credit and the mention about the book project. Let me know what people think.
-Barrett
4MySales
July 23, 2007 — 11:41 pm
Kris Berg says:
I said before that the Bloodhound was slowly replacing my feed reader. I think you just sealed the deal. Brilliant!
July 24, 2007 — 6:34 am
Richard Riccelli says:
extremely useful and smart…a suggestion: make the “by whomever” a link to that contributor’s bio or website or other source that will help your readers understand who (and perhaps why) this person is suggesting the link
July 24, 2007 — 7:22 am
Richard Riccelli says:
follow-on:
if this catches on and needs a marketing name call it “Ella” — the online equal of scat — riffs on an idea that lead to new improvisations
July 24, 2007 — 7:27 am
Greg Swann says:
> a suggestion: make the “by whomever” a link to that contributor’s bio or website or other source that will help your readers understand who (and perhaps why) this person is suggesting the link
Done. Thanks, that’s a great idea.
July 24, 2007 — 10:35 am
Jay Thompson says:
It’s pure dead brilliant.
I predict you’ll get a plethora of emails saying, “Hey, where’d you get that bitching ‘additional information’ plugin?
I’ve often pondered adding some sort of wiki to my blog. Problem is, I fear the spam bots would have a field day with it. And a wiki solution is not nearly as clean an intuitive as what you’ve done here.
July 24, 2007 — 1:19 pm
Jay Thompson says:
Okee Doke, I just cited a site in one of Kris’ recent posts. Works like a charm!
A thought, do with it as you see fit… how about adding a small comment box so the submitter can tell you why they think the link should be added? Granted, one would like to think it would be obvious, but I can see the occasional need to add a short explaination…
July 24, 2007 — 1:27 pm
Greg Swann says:
> how about adding a small comment box so the submitter can tell you why they think the link should be added?
Hmm. The headline/title is really intended to be your remark on why the link is relevant. Would it work if I made that more obvious? I ask because there seems to be an inverse law with forms: The more fields, the lower the response.
July 24, 2007 — 1:38 pm
Jay Thompson says:
Agreed that when it comes to forms, less is better. In the case of the one I just submitted, I put in the title of the actual blog post as the original author wrote it — because it fit well.
I can see how some would think they HAD to put the actual title there, and not realize it was more free-formish, allowing them to add their own thoughts.
A comment box would likely at times lead to some submitting a dissertation on why their submittal should be added — something you might not want to deal with, especially if this really takes off (as I suspect it will).
Realistically, if “the editor” can’t swiftly see the connection of the submittal, it probably doesn’t belong there anyway, and no comment will really change that…
July 24, 2007 — 1:47 pm
Greg Swann says:
I’ll give you an alternative: Split the form into required and optional sections.
July 24, 2007 — 1:50 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I’ll give you an alternative: Split the form into required and optional sections.
Done. There’s an example link shown above. This is a good idea, Jay. Thanks!
July 25, 2007 — 9:49 am
Jay Thompson says:
Very nice…. this is just a wicked cool idea/implementation.
July 25, 2007 — 10:17 am
Greg Swann says:
> Very nice…. this is just a wicked cool idea/implementation.
Bless you, sir. Thank you.
July 25, 2007 — 10:27 am