I have been participating in a dialog on Chris Brogan’s site (Thoughts for Future PodCamps). As part of the conversation, Joel Mark Witt says of PodCamp Ottawa, “I think it is important not to have Podcamps become glorified ‘teetups’ ‘tweetups’. Not saying that yours did - just worried that they will become too informal“.

Joel’s point is very well taken and I thought I’d use this opportunity to explain a bit about PodCamp Ottawa and Zero to Podcasting since they have both attracted the attention of the PodCamp community. That thought process has led me to build on thoughts of others (Chris Brogan, Chris Penn, Whitney Hoffman, Sara Streeter, Tommy Vallier, Bob Goyetche, Andrea Ross, etc…) to share my own thoughts on the future of PodCamp.

Aside from having scheduled specific discussion topics for the day, PodCamp Ottawa was admittedly informal (we sat and lay on pillows on the carpet and did away with computers and projectors). In many respects that was the beauty of the event. The environment facilitated an open discussion where everyone (three-year veterans and those who have never spoken into a microphone) felt welcome and valued. The resulting discussion left everyone in the room thinking very differently about new and social media. There was a bi-directional mentorship that advanced the newcomers and re-energized and re-focused the veterans.

As a result of the impact of the PodCamp Ottawa discussions, several of the participants conceived and mapped out Zero to Podcasting. It was a seed-to-forest workshop that aimed at striking a balance between sitting on the carpet and sitting in a lecture hall. While we did well, I think there is a lot that we could have done better while still respecting the web streaming equipment that cut the room in half (not all conferences will have this problem).

We have received a lot of feedback on the Z2P workshop. The feedback that struck me the most was told to me by several people: where most sessions and workshops explain what to do, Z2P explained and actually demonstrated how to do things and why to do them. The discussion resulted in the exploration of options and the facilitators tracked the key points and relevant URLs on a virtual whiteboard that will be organized and made available for the community in the coming days (follow the Canadian Podcast Buffet and the CPB Wiki).

This feedback has made me realize that as conference participants (speakers/facilitators and audience) we need to look beyond ‘the event itself’ and start thinking about the goals and approaches of the individual sessions.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that the future strength of PodCamp is in three verticals… vertically-focused events, structured vertical tracks, and embedded mentorship programs that build on the strengths of (and levels) both ends of vertical relationships.

There’s a very interesting post on the Vulpes Libris blog (Feature: Fox in the City) which explores the difference between professional book critics (reviewers for print publications) and bloggers. I believe that the arguments presented in the piece are universal, that they apply to all niches in which bloggers have ‘muscled’ their way into a traditionally elite turf. In addition to books, I can think of examples in technology blogs/podcasts, project studio blogs/podcasts and more.

I like the post because it’s balanced. I also like it because it shows the true colours of the two camps — and their value systems. Both sides can learn a lot from each other.

The culture of community has changed how people make their decisions. For most people the root of purchase decisions is, and almost always has been, recommendations from friends. The spaces in that culture have been filled by print publications that offer reviews. In recent years, the Internet has extended the ability of people to connect with similarly keen followers of books and, in many cases, this ability to share has supplanted a lot of newspapers and magazines. More importantly, print publications have a limited amount of review space — and on a specific schedule — which means the number of books reviewed and the frequency at which those reviews are made available does not cater to the desires of the community. There is also a perception that the book selections are driven by advertising revenue and other kick-back mechanisms.

It’s important to note that professional critics are subject to scrutiny from staff editors, something that some bloggers could use. Many bloggers write in a personal and stream-of-conciousness style that many journalists dismiss as cute and cheeky. However, there are a great number of bloggers (and podcasters) who take their production very seriously and invest a lot of time organizing and articulating their thoughts and take great care to ensure correct spelling and grammar (note: this post does not fall in that category). While more formal writing may be worth noting, the personal voice is similarly important and in many cases is a worthy opponent for institutional and academic critique of a book. In fact, I sometimes wonder what qualifies some professional critics as worthy of special status. Consider that their reviews are no less a personal opinion than a blogger’s. I’d also like to add that many serious bloggers produce regular content on self-imposed deadlines that may be more aggressive than the review schedule of a newspaper or magazine.

One argument raised by the professionals that is definitely worth exploring is the charge of bloggers being unpaid cheerleaders. Indeed, the blogosphere is well represented by those who have a policy of only publishing positive reviews. That decision may be in part because bloggers want to have strong and positive relationship with authors, editors, publishers, etc… I believe it is also a recognition of the need to have more positive discussions about something the community is passionate about; that it’s far more productive to tell people about the book you’re excited about rather than the book that you wasted your time reading. This is one area that book bloggers (and all review bloggers) need to work on if they’re concerned about credibility among mainstream media — the need to produce balanced reviews and offer up the odd disappointment.

For all of their complaints, professional critics are well shielded from one of blogging’s greatest challenges: accessibility. Particularly in the book business, one which places a lot of the PR onus on authors (and illustrators) and for which there is a lot of personal investment in the final work (more so than a piece of technology, for example), bloggers are often (I’ll say) actively pursued by independent authors and small publishing houses for the opportunity to be reviewed. This poses a significant challenge if the book provided is not consistent with the niche of the blog/podcast and when the book doesn’t appeal to the blogger/podcaster who won’t review books they don’t like (and the author is relentlessly pursuing a review). Book blogs and podcasts have a primary goal to be champions of good literature; newspapers and magazines have a primary goal to sell advertising space and publications.

I suspect that the most vocal critics of book bloggers are the professional book reviewers that feel the most threatened by the competition. Web 2.0 has changed the way many established cultural institutions have to think about their role in the Age of Collaboration; I think its fair that they are expressing their concerns, however confusing they may be for some.

Earlier today, Jeff Pulver asked the question “Where Have all the Comments Gone?” on his blog.

I tend to comment on blogs in waves. It really depends on my availability to not only read the post, but the time and attention to comment in a way that contributes to the conversation.

I prefer following blog communities over those in closed systems (read Facebook). To me, a blog is like a home; it’s where the content creator is inviting me as their personal guest. I don’t have to jump through hoops to participate. I can either go to their site (one click) or open my Google Reader and then follow the link to the post I want to comment on (if I want or have the time to comment). On the other hand, Facebook communities require an account, a profile, a friendship and/or a membership in a specific topical group. There are far too many procedures to join the conversation and then to return to participate. It’s far too impersonal and inconvenient.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Seth Godin’s trackback-limited approach, particularly after Mitch Joel put some context to it in a recent episode of Six Pixels of Separation. Seth has disabled the comment feature on his blog, preferring to encourage trackbacks. The premise is that commenters should extend the conversation to their own blogs and connect everything through links (isn’t that what the Web’s about). That seems like a more natural way to grow the conversation and add voices to it — and everyone can do it, publicly, on their own terms.

Blogs have been around for many years and likely will for many years to come. In Internet terms, they’ve stuck. Facebook, like many other social network sites, will eventually be trumped by yet another bigger and better service that we will all flock to and build from zero, again.

So, Jeff… please keep your ‘home’ open and active. It’s a great hangout.