Would you pay to read this?

Everyone's got an opinion surrounding Engadget's decision to temporarily deactivate user comments because of its editors said things had gotten "mean, ugly, pointless, and frankly threatening in some situations." While I find the reaction to Engadget's decision engaging and often amusing (Betanews reader comments, in particular, often make for fun late night reading) I'm a little surprised at the near-universal lack of understanding of how the Internet works in 2010.

I have three fundamental thoughts on Internet publishing that may help put the Engadget brouhaha in perspective:

• Web sites need comments, period. Engagement between publishers and readers is a prime creative lifeblood of the publishing industry. Writers and editors can't do what they do unless they directly understand who's reading them and what they're thinking. Comments are a critical element of this feedback loop, and a site without them rather misses the point.
• Trolls happen. It's a given that not everyone likes to play by the rules. Large groups of people, whether they're taking in a baseball game or reading a tech site, cover a wide range of capabilities and motivations. Happily, the most readers choose to be positive contributors to the process, while only a small minority either lack the ability or the will to play nice. The comments section reflects the reality of the human condition, and it won't ever change. Readers can choose to not read, while publishers can choose to ban the trolls. Or, as Engadget decided to do this week, take their ball and go home.
• This Internet thing costs money. The rise of the Web over the last 15 years or so has conditioned us into believing that all of this is and should forever be free. The current argument over Engadget's decision to suspend commenting has shed light on the realities of publishing on the Web. As much as we all like to get something for nothing, it takes resources -- money, people, and time -- to launch and run a server, populate it with content, and find ways to convert it into a self-sustaining business. Since readers don't pay the shot, advertisers do. But they'll only pay if there's an audience. Bigger audiences are, of course, better, but numbers are only part of the equation. Quality counts, too, and a site overrun with trolls doesn't just consume the resources of whoever's publishing it. Advertisers balk at paying money to connect with readers who are too focused on flinging the online equivalent of bat guano at each other to ever consider going out and buying what these companies are offering.

With these basic truths in mind, it's clear that Engadget's publishers felt the need to stop the flow of nastiness for a bit while they figured out their next move. We can slice them a new one if we wish, but Engadget's goal is not to make friends with the largest number of commenters. Rather, its entire reason for existence is to sell a particular audience to a particular set of advertisers. And if those advertisers don't feel that either the numbers or the demographic criteria fit their respective business needs, they'll pull their support.

Which brings us to the iPad launch, which delighted the folks who pay the bills because it meant they were delivering their message to a larger-than-usual audience. Apple's announcement gave online publishers a unique opportunity to enjoy higher-than-usual advertising revenues as a direct result of this audience. When big stuff happens in the tech world, people go online to learn about it and decide whether or not it makes sense for their needs. Traffic spikes as newbies and old-timers alike hit the Web looking for information, insight, and guidance. Everything else -- like run-of-the-mill news stories in the wake of the earthquake in Haiti -- gets shunted off to the side as sites do their best to meet demand. And drive it even further.

Is it fair that a touchscreen device trumps the very real drama unfolding in a certain Caribbean nation? No. But no one ever said publishing had to be fair.

Write what's hot, or don't get paid

Which largely explains the all-iPad-all-the-time philosophy that Engadget had followed in the days leading up to Apple's much anticipated announcement. Criticism in the comments notwithstanding, the site was merely reflecting what its readers were asking for -- if not directly, then certainly through their online readership patterns. The site capitalized on a golden opportunity to increase readership and the closely-linked, all-important advertising revenues. Likewise writers, some of whom are paid on a traffic-based formula, focused their efforts on the topic that would return the greatest number of page views.

Speaking for myself, the simple truth is, I typically get lots more page views when I write about Apple than when I write about, say, how social media is helping Haiti's recovery. To wit: My column last week about the iPad prompted 82 comments, as of the time of this writing. My Haiti piece? One. Based on this outcome, where do you think I'm going to focus my efforts in future to maximize reader response and, consequently, advertising value and revenue for my employer? Do you think I'm interested in writing stuff that no one reads? Do you think we'll be able to support a business that doesn't optimize its output for the largest, most desirable audience possible?

As I go through the ongoing process of coming up with topics that I think readers want to read, and that I think advertisers will appreciate, I focus on stuff that's hot and, yes, conversation-generating. If techies are discussing it around the water cooler, I want to write about it. I suppose if I wrote for a site whose readers paid for the privilege, I'd be able to back off the max-the-audience-please-the-advertiser mantra. But until the Web shifts to that model -- and the announcement by The New York Times that it will return to charging for access in 2011 signals a possible change in direction for the industry -- we'll continue to see wall-to-wall coverage of the most in-demand topics.

Because for now, advertisers call the shots. Not readers. And Engadget's decision to kill commenting for now is solid proof that Engadget listened to those who pay the bills before it pulled the plug.

Engadget restored users' commenting ability Thursday afternoon. In a blog post, its editor-in-chief, Joshua Topolsky, wrote, "Making personal attacks against other commenters, publications, or our own editors seriously degrades the community and quality of the discussion, and it won't be tolerated."

Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.