Words from another yard

Links and comment from Scott Rosenberg
Editor’s Pick
MAY 12, 2011 1:22PM

Salon’s TableTalk shutdown: What we can learn from the story of a pioneering online community

Rate: 15 Flag

Table Talk home page, circa 1999Salon.com Wednesday announced plans to close Table Talk, the online discussion space and community that has operated continuously since Salon’s launch on Nov. 20, 1995. I was involved in Table Talk’s creation and management for its first several years, and when I read the news, I flashed back to my first day at Salon.

As the tech-savviest of a not-tech-savvy-at-all gang of newspaper refugees trying to build a web magazine, I got pulled over by our then-publisher. He’d been tearing his hair out trying to get a group of unruly Cornell students to write the software that would power Table Talk, which was going to be Salon’s big bid for being not just an online magazine but an “interactive” website worthy of the Salon name. Things weren’t going well. “I want you to project manage this,” the publisher said. I thought, “What do I know from ‘project manage’? I’m a critic!” Then I dove in, because, in a startup with six employees, that was what you did.

For me it was the start of a deepening engagement with and affection for the excitement, complexity and pitfalls of building software-powered websites. (Salon itself was lovingly hand-coded then and for several years after.) We got Table Talk launched, sort of, though within weeks we had to ditch the version those Cornell kids had built and start fresh. Said kids took their software and built TheGlobe.com with it, which went on to an impossibly successful IPO at the height of the dotcom bubble before a spectacular flameout.

The original idea was that every Salon article would have a link at the end to a Table Talk thread. The articles would serve, in part, as discussion-starters and then our community would kick the ideas around. It wasn’t a dumb plan — story comments are now a Web standard. But the way we built it, modeled on the experiences some of us had had as members of The WELL, Table Talk was a separate space with threaded discussions that anyone could add. The conversations weren’t tied to the stories very well, and we quickly learned that the community members — who took to the project avidly — preferred to talk about what they wanted to talk about. Salon’s editors and writers rarely hung out in TT, and it didn’t take long before the TT members developed a dysfunctional relationship with Salon’s staff — simultaneously craving our attention and resenting our presence.

So TT went its somewhat separate way from Salon-the-magazine, which soon started running a simple, hand-coded letters to the editor page to highlight actual responses to our stories. Mary Elizabeth Williams, its original and longtime host, managed the discussion space with great love and devotion for years. We all learned a lot about dealing with anonymity and trolls, personal authenticity and online performance art, technical woes and social dynamics.

What we never managed to do was find a way to knit the energy and talent of Table Talk’s remarkable community with the skills and money being invested into Salon.com itself. Instead, Salon tried over and over to find different models for tying community together with journalism. In 1999 it acquired The WELL. In 2002 it launched a blog program. In 2005 it transformed Letters to the Editor into a more web-standard comments feature. In 2008 it launched Open Salon as a modern, social blogging platform.

As a result, Table Talk became, more and more, a separate entity. When we started Salon Premium in 2001 as a paid service that let users see an ad-free site and some premium content, we rolled Table Talk into it: its pages were readable by anyone, but you needed to pay to post. That insured its survival but also assured its marginality. Over the years Salon’s management (which I was a part of until 2007) considered, over and over, whether to shut it down. It generated large numbers of page views from a relatively small number of users and advertisers were not excited by that. Its WebCrossing software was increasingly out of step with the direction the Web was moving in. Yet TT’s community remained close-knit and vibrant. In the wake of this week’s announcement, its members, unsurprisingly, are already trying to figure out ways to continue their conversations after the site’s announced June 10 shutdown date.

I don’t second-guess Salon’s leadership for deciding to end TT today — I might well do the same in their shoes. I do think there’s a lesson here, though, not just for Salon but for all the other enterprises out there today that dream of doing what we tried for so long to do at Salon. (Hi, Arianna; hi, Tina.)

The lesson is simple: Don’t think of “conversation” and “community” as subsidiaries to “content.” They aren’t after-thoughts, add-ons, or sidebars. They are the point of the Web. Here’s how I put it in Say Everything:

[Interactivity] is just a clumsy word for communication. That communication — each reader’s ability to be a writer as well — was not some bell or whistle. It was the whole point of the Web, the defining trait of the new medium — like motion in movies, or sound in radio, or narrow columns of text in newspapers.

Editors and publishers keep crossing their fingers and hoping to find some new platform that reverses this principle and puts them back in the comfortable realm of piping content out to consumers. They think this stuff will finally settle down. But change keeps accelerating instead. Today we are feeding one another stories, passing links around, telling friends what we’re fascinated by or excited about or steamed over. My Flipboard is more useful and interesting to me than the front page of the New York Times (sorry, Bill Keller). The conversation isn’t an after-thought. It’s interesting in itself, and it’s how we inform one another.

So Table Talk is dead: RIP. But Table Talk is everywhere, too — on Facebook and Twitter, all over the blogosphere, and in a billion comment threads. Table talk is what we do online. It’s not what comes after a publication’s stories. It’s what comes before.

BONUS LINK: If you haven’t already, go read Paul Ford’s wonderful essay on the nature of the Web and its fundamental question — “Why wasn’t I consulted?”

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
But what will happen to all of that bizarre hatred of random celebrities? Where will it all go?
What a wonderful look into history. "The Well" seemed to be the start of so many communities. I was with Howard Reingold for years in Electric Minds and then Community Ware and recently Brainstorms. It was a whirlwind of communication and often contentious. You are so right that this kind of cybertalk is what comes before articles. It is creative and vital. Thank you for your ability to make it all happen and to explain how it all went down.
Open Salon writer Wendy O. spent many years on Table Talk and commonly refers to it.
Begs the question: What will be happening with OS?
And, now that Table Talk is gone, can we have some more tech attention, please?
The real - and insulting but true - answer to "why wasn't I consulted' is that the vast proportion of people can add little of value to a well thought article.

Read here a selection of articles here on Salon and OS and you can see that, while people may get some charge out of joining their personality to an article's thrust, rarely is there actual real value to the responses beyond the support implicit in lots of 'attaboys.'

This answer might also be part of the 'no value' group.
Fascinating background.
What Lea said. I came straight to Open Salon and bypassed Table Talk entirely, but wonder how this bodes for our little tent under a tent here. Scott, I read all your blogs with great interest, and appreciate your perspective as someone who was there from the beginning.
Fascinating.

I create and manage complex online communities, for Yale and others. It's always changing. Threaded discussion forums (like Kunena) evolved into sophisticated tools and simultaneously became sequestered as a tool for customer support and similar CRM purposes. Why? The tools were too good. Facebook proves that no one wants to learn new software, They want to simply type and hit submit, to click once to connect their interests and their community.

The future is in tools like JomSocial, that put tools in the hands of Members, including creating/dissolving their own self-selected affinity groups.

I mostly agree that interactivity is the Main Thing. It has to be "at the ready". But sometimes we sit back and absorb, or let ourselves be immersed. Members and Users parse this for themselves.
This was a really great, insightful essay. I very much enjoyed the story.

Originally, then, Table Talk was seen as a way to enhance the content of Salon with additional content provided by the readers gratis. I have not problem with that at all. In fact I would have fallen in love with that idea myself had I been there back then.

It is just that things internet related never seem to spin out as originally envisioned. Ya gotta go with the flow.
OK farewell table talk. I am surprised it did not work. Sounds excellent.
I did not mean that to sound so happenstance...OK farewell Table Talk.
That is not good from our POV but it might help OS survive as well. Maybe they will use us in that sites place and make us more central to the magazine. Wow I think I just saw lightening?
Thanks for the great history. It's so amazing to think what has happened to communication since 1995...Table Talk seems like it was pretty ahead of its time...but maybe the shelf life of a major web app project is like, 7 years before the tools and expectations change so much that the thing needs to be rebuilt from scratch...while the community ties it binds are broken...and rebuilt elsewhere in other configurations...

Sorry. Geeky IT project manager talk. ;-)

+R
BTW, I very much enjoyed the Paul Ford essay...and forgot to tell you how illuminating this was:

"It generated large numbers of page views from a relatively small number of users and advertisers were not excited by that."

This explains to me why the sites that are very narrow and deep don't end up getting the credit they deserve...
I participated in Table Talk for many years and found it tremendously enjoyable. The casual nature of the exchange was very appealing. Where Table Talk was like making conversation at a cocktail party, Open Salon is like erecting a Power Point presentation; one is rather obligated to make something of a show of it. Compared to TT, OS feels like work. But perhaps there is no longer room for the informal, for free-and-easy banter on today's web. The bottom line is a virtual whip.
I never saw Table Talk so thanks for the background. The extended conversation aspect sounds great. One thing I'm sorry to see on OS is how an interesting post can generate interesting comments without therebeing much feedback from the poster and then in a day or two, everyone's moved on. Still, I prefer OS to anything else I've seen.
Scott,

As a historical footnote, I left TT when it became clear that it was pay-to-post and free-to-read. That seemed backward to me. There was no advertising model back then to speak of, but charging content producers seemed morally wrong and I took a stand by leaving.

And it's true that some of TT is conversation, something one can get other places, but some of those conversations are more enduring than others. It's a flaw in the internet and in intellectual property law that there's no stake for the community which may have made URL bookmarks into something and indeed may have made conscious choices not to write about something already written about, instead referencing it, only to find that the bookmarks are later voided. Not just at Salon, but everywhere, this is a recipe for seeing some of the fabric of the net unravel. Things won't fall apart, but there will be increased reliance on the big companies that can endure financial hard times, and that will be a blow for diversity.

There are several conversations there I wish I could allude back to, but at least one that you guys thought worth archiving as well. This discusion (which I participated in for part of the thread) was one of the ones I thought was really important and I'll be sad if it's lost for reference purposes. There are others in the “attic” as you surely know. Please give serious consideration to offering this stuff over to archive.org in some form. That site appears not to have been spidering your site because of your robots.txt (and perhaps also because you use “query URLs” as locators there) so there is no historical archive like there might be for many sites. That's a shame. I bet they'd be willing to take and host a final archive of the site's threads, or at least of the ones you deem enduring.
You made a lot of good points here:

-- publishers, especially if they come from traditional media, keep hoping for the return of the days when they can just report and put it out there, end of story. That's not going to happen.

-- the integration of conversation/community/content. It's sort of an awkward juggle that everyone is trying to figure out.

I know you are sad to see the ending of Table Talk, as you essentially created it. But I don't think it's due to poor management or mistakes. That forum type of interaction has just been replaced by many better ways of interaction, like comments and blog sites, such as Open Salon. I'm really surprised Table Talk was still operating until now-- 16 years?

Although, I think that the discussion you refer to on FB and Twitter needs to have a place both before and after a story is published.

I always enjoy reading your posts, you provide great insight into the big picture of new media.
Thanks for all the great responses. Kent, to answer your point about archives: We had robots.txt on Table Talk because it seemed like what most of the members there wanted. Even though participants understood their posts were publicly viewable, many grew uncomfortable with the idea of searchability as Google rose to prominence and we tried to respect that. So TT was neither Google-able nor archive-able by the IA.

I hate to see any piece of the Web' s history disappear and I've offered my help, advice and labor to Salon to try to figure out if there's a way to save TT for historical purposes without violating members' expectations in terms of privacy. It's complicated, as you can imagine. I'm not formally affiliated with Salon any more, and it's a pretty small staff these days trying to do a million and one things. So we'll see what happens.
Don’t think of “conversation” and “community” as subsidiaries to “content.” They aren’t after-thoughts, add-ons, or sidebars. They are the point of the Web Yes, that is the idea I get too after years of watching the web develop and the fact that OS is one blogsite where there is that dialogue happening constantly is its USP. I wish someone had alerted me to Table Talk when it was free and earlier than today - after all I was in on OS within six months of its comong into bieng in Aug 2008.

I regret not being able to experience TT - though I shall now go and check the space out and thanks for that link.

If you are still helping OS unofficially, hope you also see that they do not have to kill OS or make it a paid blogsite and find a way to generate money and revenue for it to sustain itself. For the future of the web is like the American public libraries: it should be available to every citizen free of cost.
I liked this a lot in the link to WWIC you gave us:
Do it in partnership with your readers. Turn your readers into members. Not visitors, not subscribers; ...And then don't just consult them, but give them tools to consult amongst themselves. These things are cheap and easy now if you hire one or two smart people instead of a large consultancy.

If we could all get together and help OS to do what Paul suggests and (I think he makes very good sense) this place would be one of the best blogging sites in the WWW. You see WP is hugely feature rich, but that OS had a plan ('built in audience') about the WWIC thing about people when they began is what probably gives it its edge? I look forward to seeing good changes on OS soon and thank you once again - but for you I wd never have known about TT, MetaFilter and Paul's analysis - fun and thought provoking. I also learned that Internet is now my 'native' medium :) I love it when I have new words to label new experiences. It feels a bit like watching money in your bank grow: you feel your world is expanding.
The days of the web as all-purpose media emulator are numbered. Apps on mobile are gaining traction; Paul Ford.
You know, Scott, I could connect this to what a youngster is reported to have said in Robin Sneed's latest post on a box about how we are the gifts to each other and how one would rather use the phone to connect (or in Paul's term engage in the WWIC thing). Amazing.
Paul Ford says that (in the article linked by you in your post), not me:

Do it in partnership with your readers. Turn your readers into members. Not visitors, not subscribers; ...And then don't just consult them, but give them tools to consult amongst themselves. These things are cheap and easy now if you hire one or two smart people instead of a large consultancy.

Obviously the blockquote code doesnt work on OS :) I had done and it didnt work.