I don’t think we’re going to trick good bloggers (hotchicks?) into commenting here regularly. It’d be easier just to cultivate the talent rather than pinch it. Maybe you could start visiting undergrad liberal arts institutions when they have their career fairs?

by JH—Aug 19, 02:57 PM

1) The career fairs aren’t for, like, months; I want commenters NOW. 2) You underestimate the power of the force, young Skywalker! 3) Who said anything about good bloggers? Promising but not yet proven ones should be sufficient.

by greg—Aug 19, 03:28 PM

I recommend we try to lure Scott (aka Gay Restorationist) here. He would make a fine addition to our community.

by JH—Aug 19, 03:30 PM

There’s also quite a bit of buzz around a fellow known as “hermit chris.”

by JH—Aug 19, 03:32 PM

Seeing as how both are already members of the aristocracy, they don’t count, especially since they’ve also already dumped us.

by greg—Aug 19, 03:52 PM

1) SWAG (I’m thinking HR t-shirts, mousepags and coffee mugs)

2) Lowering the level of discourse. Methinks you folks scare away more than your share of average readers, and therefore your pool of potential commentors is diminished.

3Alcohol. Apparently it is the main ingredient in Girls Gone Wild enterprises…

by GKB—Aug 19, 04:52 PM

6.2: You pooh-poohers are hellbent on sabotaging this experiment before it even gets a hypothesis, aren’t you? People! We don’t need meta-analysis; we need names!

by greg—Aug 19, 05:41 PM

What, my once ever other month blogging isn’t good enough for you? (Though be warned, I’m thinking of writing another post tonight). Of course, I suppose I don’t really qualify as a Hot Undergrad, what with being 31 and having two masters degrees.

by Laura—Aug 19, 06:48 PM

L, your bimonthly blogging is lacking in quantity—though definitely not in quality—but of course, that has nothing to do with the task, here.

Look, we can add all kinds of commenters; mostly, though, I want women in order to preempt the commentariat from from becoming a giant circle jerk.

by greg—Aug 19, 07:22 PM

By virtue of this question and this post, what about Amber at Prettier than Napoleon? Plus: Arkansas roots! Minus: no pine nuts in her pesto (but maybe she’s allergic?).

by greg—Aug 19, 08:19 PM

Note: Contra 2, Amber’s also a well-established blogger.

by greg—Aug 19, 08:27 PM

Sure. Ask her out. I’ll be wingman if you want. Or are we too old for the whole wingman thing?

by JH—Aug 20, 05:47 AM

Too old? Hardly. Maybe it should be a staged process: you warm her up with an initial link or two, then HR will suck her into its gravity.

Did I ever mention that I think the Internet has spatial geometry? It’s not communities that are formed here, but rather interstellar bodies. Some sections of the Web are black holes around which entire galaxies orbit; others, moons circling moons. Very few of the Web’s denizens are comets or interstellar travelers. The reason it’s difficult to drag persons from one site to another is because it takes a lot of energy to break the pull of gravity.

Finally, back to 6.2: Lower the level of discourse? WTF? Standards are already pretty low around here without you—of all people!—claiming intimidation. Damn pacifist…

by greg—Aug 20, 06:44 AM

12 again: We will not, however, put all of our eggs into one basket! More names!

by greg—Aug 20, 06:46 AM

I’m no hot chick but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I’ll comment more when I know what the crap you are talking about :D

by Scott—Aug 20, 09:35 AM

Of course we’re talking about one of the most crucial public policy questions of the past 250 hears: how to build a strong working and middle class.

by greg—Aug 20, 09:38 AM

Indeed, the standard can’t get much lower around here, what with commenters asking for things like mousepags. WTH is a mousepag?

Perhaps increasing the spell-checking and grammar-checking features would attract a higher class of commenter. Good grammar is hot, after all (at least that’s what the Facebook group says).

by GKB—Aug 20, 12:11 PM

Of course!

Why didn’t I think of it sooner.

HR needs a Facebook group, and, like, stat!

That way, you can invite the members that most closely fit the “hot chick” ideal. If, that is, they choose to use actual photos of themselves for their profile pics, and not, other images.

by GKB—Aug 20, 12:15 PM

If there’s a HR FB group, I’m not joining it, because it would provide my real life collegues a fairly direct path to my blog.

by JH—Aug 20, 12:38 PM

In the nomination dept., are various Unfogged commenters too big for our britches, or do we need to aim lower?

by JH—Aug 20, 12:47 PM

I don’t think I’d join an HR facebook group, either… I mean, there are, like, teenagers there.

by greg—Aug 20, 12:53 PM

20: My suspicion is that they’re all too busy commenting on Unfogged to add anything more. That site’s a FT job just to keep up with one post’s comments, much less the dozen they seem to follow at a time. (Of course, they also have a dedicated chat-app, but I’m too wary to install that at work.) Sites that link to Unfogged, however, might yield better chances, especially in the 25–75 range in Technorati Authority.

by greg—Aug 20, 12:58 PM

Two Words: Hermit. Dave.

Not only is following the steps of the mighty Boo Mitchell and saving journalism in Mississippi, but the brother knows his music.

Dave.

Dave.

Dave.

He even dated a girl named Bone, as I recall.

Dave!

by JRB—Aug 20, 10:30 PM

In fact, I’ve been slowly working on the boy to get him to seek out parts of the Intartubes that aren’t Facebook.

by greg—Aug 21, 05:32 AM

bringing back hermit dave would represent one of the greatest triumphs of this young century.

i have been just now been sitting here talking with j.d. salinger and jimmy hoffa about the ramifications of such an event. back into the ether…

by hermit chris—Aug 21, 08:34 AM

but before i go…

as i consider this conversation, it strikes me that blogs are all about succumbing to our impulse to say more than we should or than anyone really has to hear. if we used our words most efficiently (i.e., not correcting others’ opinions and letting others have the “final word” while we smile to ourselves about our un-voiced reply), blogs would be a more boring place. (although bloggers might be more productive members of society with lowered blood pressures). on the other hand, perhaps we should celebrate the listener who is content to participate silently. The term “lurker” seems unnecessarily pejorative and a bit buttheaded.

by chris—Aug 21, 08:44 AM

25: I always suspected your time in the ether would be well spent.

26: Doesn’t that depend on what you conceive of a blog to be, though? I mean, bully for the professional writer who can make his or her living off his or her own thoughts, judgments, criticisms, investigations, and imaginations alone; bully, too, for the blogger who is so prolific that the paratext of commentary (e.g., him) is essentially meaningless and being a lurker and an outside linker is indeed part of the force of that blogger’s work; bully, finally, for the polemicists, their friends, and their enemies for their ability to beat down mountains with the jackhammer speed and force of their tongues—or typing fingers, as the case may be.

All of those options are rather closed to audience.

Meanwhile, intermixed in all that (which is most of the blogosphere) there’s still chance to have something that’s not generally blood-pressure raising (or if it is, understands the reason and purpose of raising blood pressures) and that creates something stimulating—and, I think, something newish to public discourse. As I see it, the potential to construct that thing is worth the time encouraging lurkers to more participation.

That, and of course my ulterior motive, which is the establishment of a true blog caste system.

by greg—Aug 21, 09:16 AM

in your caste system, could we marry whomever we want?

by chris—Aug 21, 12:30 PM

Only if you’re already married.

by greg—Aug 21, 12:32 PM

Or, of course, if you are in an otherwise committed relationship, which functions in all ways like marriage but is not named as such.

by greg—Aug 21, 02:06 PM

We’re working on it, jeez.

by JH—Aug 21, 02:32 PM

I wasn’t talking about you, but rather teh gheys, who need special considerations on account of the lameness of the law. But I suppose if you must include yourself, you must…

by greg—Aug 21, 02:35 PM

Oops, sorry, I’ve been sensitive lately.

by JH—Aug 21, 02:56 PM

Why?

by greg—Aug 21, 03:02 PM

We’ve been getting a lot of the hurry-up-and-get-married talk from the would-be in-laws, brought to a fever pitch by one of B’s cousins recently and suddenly getting hitched. We’ve also been getting a lot of the eternal question at BBQs and garden parties and such from aquaitances: “So when are you two getting married??”

by JH—Aug 21, 03:07 PM

From experience, I know that if you get hitched two months after you start dating, you avoid all that. Not that I wasn’t told that “I waited,” even though I was only 24. That’s also not to say that getting hitched so quickly doesn’t bring its own set of obnoxious questions, most of them of the “Are you sane?” variety.

by greg—Aug 21, 03:17 PM

Still, I sympathize. That kind of scrutiny does tend to make one touchy.

by greg—Aug 21, 03:18 PM

Well, yeah, compared to most of your kindred you were practically a barren husk when you got married.

What annoys me is when I explain that we are waiting for purely financial reasons, and I get the predictable comeback, “Oh everyone thinks they don’t have enough money, you just go ahead and marry and you find a way to make it work.” Aside from the fact that we literally wouldn’t have enough money, not by a long shot, it’s an obviously inane statement. Marriages are regularly strained even unto the breaking point over money. It’s pretty @%^&*%# important.

by JH—Aug 21, 03:29 PM

I imagine, too, it’s easier to be broke and married in your own country than it is to be broke and married in somebody else’s, universal healthcare notwithstanding.

by greg—Aug 21, 05:37 PM

That statement becomes even more frightening when instead of “you just get married, and then you afford it,” it’s “you just have a kid, and then you afford it.” WHAT?

That was what we heard, almost verbatim, from G’s mom a couple of years ago…Insurance, shmimshurance, I guess.

by kl—Aug 21, 08:56 PM

oh come on… where two eat, three can eat—especially if the child is suckled for the 6 years of herms life.

and, to the oooohhh, we can’t get married we don’t have enough money… you mean living together is cheaper?

by Balthasar Gracián—Aug 21, 09:04 PM

Ah, but we’re in special circumstances. You’re not allowed to work while studying in Oxbridge, so she is supported by her parents. This money will stop the moment she gets married.

And yes, being broke in a foreign country is 10x scarier than being broke in your home country. But as you mention, universal health care is a big, big, big, big, big, big advantage.

by JH—Aug 22, 05:44 AM

Cheer up, though! You still have the dowry to look forward to!

by greg—Aug 22, 09:18 AM

Sweeeeeeeeet.

by JH—Aug 22, 10:32 AM