<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Liveblogging &#8211; Is it worth it?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html</link>
	<description>Vancouver Blog Miss604</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:34:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zanstorm</title>
		<link>http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html#comment-2293</link>
		<dc:creator>Zanstorm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 02:51:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html#comment-2293</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve settled in to &#039;the happy medium&#039; when live-blogging the Canucks. I break it up into 3 periods. That way I&#039;m not rambling every second, but rather analyzing play period-by-period while it&#039;s fresh in my mind.
I am wondering how many people actually read a whole live blog post the next day when they have already seen the game or even if they haven&#039;t.  What&#039;s the point? I think most people prefer a 3 paragrah summary of the game, and not a 8000 word rambling.  And who is going to sit there and read the live blog when they can&#039;t watch it on tv? That is idiocy. Go buy a satellite dish! What&#039;s the point of covering coverage? :)

That is where your live blogging of the Matt Good show makes sense. Only a few people could be there at your place to see it. You only were the means by which a reader could follow the event.

Am i out of line here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve settled in to &#8216;the happy medium&#8217; when live-blogging the Canucks. I break it up into 3 periods. That way I&#8217;m not rambling every second, but rather analyzing play period-by-period while it&#8217;s fresh in my mind.<br />
I am wondering how many people actually read a whole live blog post the next day when they have already seen the game or even if they haven&#8217;t.  What&#8217;s the point? I think most people prefer a 3 paragrah summary of the game, and not a 8000 word rambling.  And who is going to sit there and read the live blog when they can&#8217;t watch it on tv? That is idiocy. Go buy a satellite dish! What&#8217;s the point of covering coverage? <img src='http://www.miss604.com/wordpress/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>That is where your live blogging of the Matt Good show makes sense. Only a few people could be there at your place to see it. You only were the means by which a reader could follow the event.</p>
<p>Am i out of line here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duane Storey</title>
		<link>http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html#comment-2292</link>
		<dc:creator>Duane Storey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 08:22:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html#comment-2292</guid>
		<description>D&#039;oh.. Are you guys bringing the tequila tomorrow, or is it me?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>D&#8217;oh.. Are you guys bringing the tequila tomorrow, or is it me?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wyn</title>
		<link>http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html#comment-2291</link>
		<dc:creator>wyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 00:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.miss604.com/2007/05/liveblogging-is-it-worth-it.html#comment-2291</guid>
		<description>It seems like the person who is live-blogging is much like the person who is photographing or videotaping an event: you&#039;re looking at the event through a lens (figuratively when blogging, literally for the other scenarios) that makes your own experience of the event different from if you attended free of media equipment.  Still, we bloggers have this innate blogger-lens &quot;How can we blog about this?&quot; mentality so it might not be a huge trade-off.

Personally, if I can&#039;t make it to the event, it&#039;s awfully nice that someone took the trouble, traded-off a little to provide a live blog.  I might not be the first to volunteer to do the live-blogging and deal with a handful or tens of comments coming in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like the person who is live-blogging is much like the person who is photographing or videotaping an event: you&#8217;re looking at the event through a lens (figuratively when blogging, literally for the other scenarios) that makes your own experience of the event different from if you attended free of media equipment.  Still, we bloggers have this innate blogger-lens &#8220;How can we blog about this?&#8221; mentality so it might not be a huge trade-off.</p>
<p>Personally, if I can&#8217;t make it to the event, it&#8217;s awfully nice that someone took the trouble, traded-off a little to provide a live blog.  I might not be the first to volunteer to do the live-blogging and deal with a handful or tens of comments coming in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

