Hi Jim: One question that intrigues me is whether the feedback/interactivity is proportionately greater for blogs or for large-scale commercial websites dealing with the same subject matter. If Jim's blog attracts 200 visitors per day and generates 20 comments, isn't that better than Big News Site.com that has 20,000 visitors/day and 1,500? Is there a difference between the two? I would hypothesize comments to news can be more reactive while blog feedback can be more collaborative. As an example, one blog I visit is Andrea Chiu's Foxymoron. She's made posts asking for help on getting started in deepening her knowledge of art and jazz. I offered a few thoughts (Akin pitched in on jazz). If you want a classic example of "triggering debate," look no further back than Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente's notorious anti-Newfoundland screed: Oh Danny Boy, Pipe Down (Jan. 6). That one story triggered more than 2,000 e-mails -- but it was a calculated effort by a very high-profile writer in a national newspaper to poke an entire province in the eye with a stick. If there is a difference in the type of feedback, maybe it's due to that sense of community that you allude to -- and that MSM writers may get more from time to time, but sometimes not for the best reasons. Cheers Bill D.