When I arrived at IDEA 2006, I was considering live blogging it. I had been told in the past that live blogging an event gets a lot of readership. But maybe sometimes blogging isn't appropriate.
But I did not, because I went to IDEA to be present at IDEA. I wanted to pay full attention to the speakers and discuss topics with attendees. I wasn't interested in being an embedded conference reporter like Roland Headley.
Now, on the other hand, IDEA 2006 practically begged us to blog the conference. The motivations for this were probably driven more by viral marketing desires for the next conference than for outright conversation extension - but it was encouraged nonetheless.
As for "should conferences ban blogging?" I find that as interesting as the Seattle Fire Department changing their data feed to avoid mapping - but still providing the information. Should conferences "ban" blogging?
If I pay hundreds of dollars to go to a conference, I feel I've bought the information I'm being provided and should therefore be allowed to discuss it in any way I wish. If a company invites me to see unreleased technology and asks me to sign an NDA, I'm good for that too. Both have their place. But it'll be a very rare occasion where I pay for a conference I can't talk about.
Never squelch the conversation. People resent being silenced.
Technorati Tags: IDEA2006
powered by performancing firefox