Liveblogging: Post mortem
I thought last night’s liveblogging went well. In all, I put up nine distinct posts as the night wore on.
In a lot of ways, it was like taking notes. I maintained a running score card of votes and kept readers informed of what was happening, sort of a textual play-by-play. It was different than when I liveblogged via the chat room (which I’ve since taken down). Then, most of what I wrote was commentary, and others joined in. Putting things in a post forced me, at least mentally, to consider more what I was saying. I also could add links as I needed to explain background.
I may later re-establish the chat room to let others comment more off the cuff, and I can pick and chose what comments to add to posts.
This morning, I also went through these posts and cleaned up the wording, corrected spelling errors and added additional links to previous posts, and in one case, a Wikipedia entry.
You will note that commenter Vonster “live-commented” and dumps a God-awful number of comments into the posts.
There are some changes I plan for the next meeting (two weeks from now). It’s going to be a long meeting. Luckily, I’ll be able to browse the Web when it gets too boring. I’m wondering what over events I can attend and liveblog.








I won’t be doing that again. Absent the context of actually watching the meeting and more people on line at the time…
I liked it when you were commenting on the proceedings rather than recording them. Since I was watching the play by play on TV I didn’t really need it spelled out. However, when you or others could give the history behind issues or throw your 2 cents in it really added to my understanding of what was going on.