Thank you for your reflections Joe/Loudmouth and Formersnag - I ignore you if you ramble on (no offence) or snap back if I feel like it. I hate to tell you that you two are not the reason for my comments, as frustrating as they can be sometimes.

There are some posters though who go too far and tend to ride Indigenous posters or people whose views indicate thay are allies of, or at least don't have the venom towards, Indigenous Australians.

This uncontrolled vitriol simply drives people away and greatly diminsishes the opportunity for intellegent discussion. Unfortunately OLO is getting the reputation of being a bit of a redneck haven because of this unbridled trolling. I do note that the worst ones have not commented on this post.

diver dan, thank you for forgiving me my sensitivities :)
I use Aka because it means grandmother and I have seen another person using the AKA, as in Also Known As, in other posts.

While I know that Indigenous issues is a socially controversial issue, the overt racism that some posters come out with does nothing for conversation. Why should people visit the site when such pap becomes the norm.

I do think that there can be better housekeeping rules of engagement.

think than move, you do make me smile. I don't know much about poetry but you write like your words are meant to be sung. Sorry I don't do youtube very well, slow connection, so I didn't see the clips. Maybe later :)

Bushbred, thanks for your support but I would not like to see OLO get too academic. I would like to see it gain in readers, commentators and authors from a wide range of experiences and educational backgrounds. The diversity is great.

The reason for my suggestion was that there was an article on OLO written by a new Indigenous contributor and an email went australia wide on Indigenous email networks urging people to read and offer positive comment - to support this person. The author and the article were mercilessly villified by posters and only 2 Indigenous people commented on it - myself and one other. You can imagine the impression and comments made by Indigenous people and their colleagues who visited the site.

These first time readers will be difficult to entice back after seeing such unadulterated malice from a select few posters.

Hey that's OK Aka, I find that the topic, which Iam in full agreement of and a fair go for "all" Australians, will always gets My full attention.

Indigenous people and their colleagues who visit this site are always welcome in my books. Some of the smartest people in places like( Well, I'd better not say since they pay me well ) are biggest drop-kicks on the planet, and I know what and how they think. ( dark-horse ) smile.

Your posts are at least open and honest, plus well delivered with the sting of all that's balanced.

Thanks

TTM

The discussion has moved from the central issue of the survival of OLO to the mildly tangential issue of the vitriol of posters detracting from the value of the site. I'd actually prefer if we kept focus on how to ensure OLO's survival, but will toss in a comment on the 'debate' in the forum, because it has beeen mildly irritating personally. I've had five articles up on OLO, on early reading, early learning, importance of the early years, etc. First article copped the lot - I was just promoting my small business, ideas had no merit, etc. Then when Fraser Mustard was in town I took the trouble to attend his lectures, and write up a critical summary of his talks - yes, not least because I knew he was arguing in favour of many of the things I had been advocating. Well - the difference was AMAZING. No comments at all - and I got myself listed in an Education Department bibliography. Well, well - no clearer evidence of the non-intellectual nature of the antagonistic commentariat on OLO was needed. What to do about it - well, nothing! The articles can stand on their merit. Anyone who reads comments rather than articles will always be swinging in the winds of popular judgment, presumably lacking confidence in this own powers of discrimination and assessment. In the end they are of little significance. Meantime we should brainstorm some more on how to keep Graham's baby vigorous and financial, so articles can keep on reaching the wider shores of OLO's readership.

Graham's opening question in the article is "How do you make online journalism pay?". Toward the end of the article Graham observes "We do build very good websites, and we get paid for our research from time to time."

Whether or not it presently pays (enough), OLO's online journalism is both outside MainStreamMediaWorld's editorial orbit, and, at the viewers' choice, interactive. Therein lies its attraction, I would think, to a large and unrestricted potential reader/viewership. However, it must be recognised that all who are simply viewers, and the bulk of registered users, are effectively, and in the latter case by deliberate choice, incognito. This largely incognito and partly interactive readership the article recognises as being a community, with the words, "in our redesign we will be trying to harness the power of our community to make our site better and stronger".



I wonder is it possible for OLO to sell paid enhancements to this already, if not captive, largely loyal, potential market?



For example, I note that in the little row of icons that displays beneath the posting timestamp there is provision for an icon that, on mouse-over, displays as 'visit this user's home page'. Most registered users do not take advantage of this feature for the reason, I suspect, that they have no home page or website of their own. Was it to be possible to have a website hosted under the auspices of OLO under my online persona of 'Forrest Gumpp', I could be interested in paying for it depending upon the cost involved.

I should imagine that it should be legally possible for such a hosted website to shelter under the existing OLO protections as to anonymity and yet still comply with any legislated requirements as to traceability imposed upon any ISP.

I also imagine that the availability of a basic 'template' user website could hold the web design costs to OLO down, whilst providing an opportunity for what I suspect is a largely non-digitally-technically-literate user demographic to enhance their interactivity with the OLO site.

Just a thought.

The focus on blogger vitriol could be seen as an "emergent property" of the chaos that characterises OLO discussion threads. The essays are rather like Rorschach tests or tea leaves, where the viewer reads into what is really on their mind. Graham's inkblot or tea leaves was "finance"- we read into it "blogger behaviour". I wonder why?

It's a simple connection- many people are aching for a site where a diversity of opinions can be expressed in a variety of ways- but within the ethos of democracy and the "Australian fair go". It is one of the paradoxes of democracy that we must allow a voice to those who advocate the overthrow of democracy. But this ethos, I think, was foundered on the assumption that the dissenters would play by the same basic rules as the democratic majority- ie speak for themselves in a civil voice that has its foundations in reason.

However, what we are seeing is a tacit banding together of mean-spirited rednecks who constantly abuse OLO's democratic principles. As I have said before in these columns, much of this behaviour reminds me of the "deep south" of my youth in the '50s- and for those who weren't there, have a look at the movie "Wake in Fright". Perhaps these people have- and think that it is a training video.

Who wants to hang around with people whose first reflex is to be abusive and have no respect for the principles of reason that underpin democracy? Only other abusers- the majority figuratively poke their heads in on this front-bar brawl and head off for some quiet salon. They'd like a bit of bawdiness, but not a constant exulting of ignorance and adulation of tyrants.

Clean up OLO and you'll get masses of fair-minded Aussies paying whatever it takes to keep democracy alive.