I’d been thinking about live blogging for a while now and wondering what the point really was.
It’s become common practice at conferences in the US for bloggers to blog live from presentations and discussions. I’ve seen it a bit over here in the UK, but I don’t think it’s as common.
The whole topic of live blogging flared up in the blogosphere when Steve Crescenzo wrote about his experience as a presenter being live blogged at a recent conferece.
As a reader of blogs I’ve always questioned the value of the posts that come from live blogging.
The stream of slightly disjointed notes and running commentary on who’s saying what very rarely provides any insight or indeed a useful record of the conference proceedings.
Many live blog posts remind me of meeting notes I used to take on my PDA where they made sense to me at the time, but a few days later I couldn’t fathom out what I had noted at all.
I struggle to make enough notes for myself at many conferences I attend, let alone formulate them into a meaningful blog post at the time.
There is an argument that live bloggers are looking for news to break, and that by being there on the conference floor they can get the scoop they crave. But let’s be realistic, how much news is really made in the conference room itself? Not much I’d say.
The bloggers who create a useful record of conference proceedings are those that make decent notes, reflect, think and then write (and edit) a post a few hours later.
The additional insight they add, as well as the quality of their summary of proceedings makes their posts much more useful than quickly-dashed off live notes that don’t hang together as a coherent post.
Allan Jenkins is thinking along the same lines as me, as well as making a couple of good points about manners at conferences.
If you were speaking at a conference what do you think about live bloggers? Do they add value or would you prefer they powered down and participated in the main event?
I know a few event managers read this blog. What’s your take on live blogging?