Comments on: In Need of Repair: The Supreme Court’s Web Site http://www.socialgovernment.com/2009/03/15/in-need-of-repair-the-supreme-courts-web-site/ Turning Government into Government 2.0 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:57:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Ethan Klapper http://www.socialgovernment.com/2009/03/15/in-need-of-repair-the-supreme-courts-web-site/comment-page-1/#comment-39 Ethan Klapper Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:06:14 +0000 http://www.socialgovernment.com/?p=286#comment-39 Jeffrey-- I always appreciate when someone with your expertise participates in the conversation here! You do raise some valid points, and I will try my best to stay more positive when I post here. Keep reading! Jeffrey–

I always appreciate when someone with your expertise participates in the conversation here!

You do raise some valid points, and I will try my best to stay more positive when I post here.

Keep reading!

]]> By: Jeffrey Levy http://www.socialgovernment.com/2009/03/15/in-need-of-repair-the-supreme-courts-web-site/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Jeffrey Levy Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:49:12 +0000 http://www.socialgovernment.com/?p=286#comment-37 Not a bad review, but I suggest you decide your goal for this blog. If you want to be heard by the people whose work you're reviewing, then focus on constructive criticism: help people understand why you want to see the changes you recommend. Even more strategic, help them understand why it's to their benefit to improve their web presence. By all means, recommend change, but do so in a way that shows you're trying to help, not tear down for failing to meet your standards. A different approach is to insult people and try to get them to change out of fear that you might insult them again. Your posts seem to wander back and forth, both within individual posts and between them. For example, in this post, you provide a good reason for why there should be more than a one-paragraph bio. So that's the helpful side. But then you use language like "it's an embarrassment to our nation's legal system." So - what kind of blogger will you be? Which do you think is more likely to get the people actually running these sites to do what you'd like? Not a bad review, but I suggest you decide your goal for this blog. If you want to be heard by the people whose work you’re reviewing, then focus on constructive criticism: help people understand why you want to see the changes you recommend. Even more strategic, help them understand why it’s to their benefit to improve their web presence. By all means, recommend change, but do so in a way that shows you’re trying to help, not tear down for failing to meet your standards.

A different approach is to insult people and try to get them to change out of fear that you might insult them again.

Your posts seem to wander back and forth, both within individual posts and between them.

For example, in this post, you provide a good reason for why there should be more than a one-paragraph bio. So that’s the helpful side.

But then you use language like “it’s an embarrassment to our nation’s legal system.”

So – what kind of blogger will you be? Which do you think is more likely to get the people actually running these sites to do what you’d like?

]]>