As for the three FaceBook options, you can never underestimate the amount of dirty old men there are online. My money’s on #3 too.

1. Some Facebookers are self-conscious and don’t want to put up pictures of themselves.
2. Some Facebookers are technologically inept and don’t know how to upload a picture.
3. Some Facebookers use Facebook for its other purpose - to see other people’s faces!

I’d place my bets on the last one. ;)

Back on topic: do you think it’s more valuable to build equity for your site by associating it with popular topics, or to build equity for your name by associating expertise to it? I think the former is harder to achieve, but is much more rewarding in the long-run.

Isn’t it odd how so many people use FaceBook, yet have the standard question mark avatar? It’s like they don’t know the name of the site they’re using.

One of the best things about blogs is that they enable conversation between people with shared interests.

The more we brand our comments with something other than our name and our face, is the less personal these conversations get. For the most part, I’m more intrigued by somebody with a photo of themselves as their avatar than by somebody with a logo or some other piece of abstract imagery. It reassures me you have a face and that you’re human (as stupid and basic as that sounds - it’s true).

The growth of social communities like Facebook (and Friendster before that) has spawned from the idea that you’re actually meeting and interacting with real people - not just some guy with a clever screen name. Blogs (and comments) should follow this same mindset.

But at last, we must adapt to where the market goes. Personal values don’t go very far when you’re trying to get click-thrus.

Of course more and more blogs are using the MyAvatars / Gravatars plugin, which helps brand us even more, and I’ve been thinking of changing my avatar to show the ‘d’ and ‘a’ of my logo.

I think you’re absolutely right when you say:

If you have to think twice about whether your comment will be seen as spam, it probably is spam.

I don’t really find that a ‘branded comment’ is all that intrusive, I just found it fascinating that everything we do these days, including how we conduct a public conversation, must be done so strategically.

On the one hand, it does imply that the purity of the message being communicated is compromised when there is an alternative intention present. But on the other hand, I think we’ve all come to terms with the idea that it’s a competitive environment that we operate in, and that so long as what you’re doing still holds some value to others (i.e. posting an insightful comment), then everything’s fair game.

I think for the most part, we can all distinguish real spam from strategically branded comments. I suppose the rule of thumb is that if you have to think twice about whether your comment will be seen as spam, it probably is spam.

Here’s the thing, it sets me apart from other commenters whilst also telling people my name and my job.

I don’t go around leaving two word comments like I suspect a lot of JC’s top commentators do (you know the ones - ‘great post’ or ‘nice work’).

I always try to contribute to the discussion and get people thinking.

What’s your opinion, Verne? Do you think it comes across as spammy? I value your thoughts on this one as it’s not the first time I’ve read a similar type of article.

Someone signing off with their blog/company name as their ‘Name’ makes me question their intentions and the value of their site.

Luckily of your 5 top commentors everyone’s clean (with 1 fake name in there). Hmm…