The Summer 2010 has vastly outpaced previous issues in visits during the initial launch. Totals for the three most recent issues are:

• Summer ’09: 2700 visits in first four weeks
• Fall ’09: 1200 visits in first four weeks
• Summer ’10: 3000 visits in first two weeks

The increase seems to be due primarily to Facebook, which accounted for 1200 visits

These are still modest numbers, as you’d expect from a small college. But look at the dramatic improvement. Part of this is likely because we have more facebook fans than for the last issue (we’ve added nearly 1,000 since I started in February.), but that just emphasizes my larger point that engaging people in the community where they want to be engaged means gains for whatever you’re trying to promote.

He’s mostly concerned with marketing, but the points he makes hold true for media-types, as well.

What do clients care about?

• Ideas - creative, strategic ideas that solve a problem and accomplish objectives
• Integrated solutions – approaches that bring together disciplines into a strategic approach
• Understanding – a clear knowledge and grasp of the issues that matter to them
• Rounded team – a well-formed team that covers all the bases
• Chemistry – a team that gels with the client-side team personally as well as professionally
• Thought leadership – demonstrated leadership in the areas that matter
• Success – documented case studies – the one area in which, for now, being a first mover gives the advantage.

So which of these do you offer to your media company? Or to your readers and viewers? If you don’t offer any of these, why not? We thought social media was going to catch on, but how many of us thought about what would be next?

Today, Evan Williams, co-founder of Twitter, wrote on the blog today that IM support, which has been gone for months now, won’t be back any time soon. That’s going to disappoint plenty of people, but it’s not such a bad thing. First of all, it’s been gone for months already, second of all, what good is IM support if the system itself is shaky? Twitter went through some really rough growth spurts earlier this year, with many people threatening to leave for good because of spotty connection and the seemingly omnipresent fail whale. They’ve gotten better. Not perfect, but much much better. It would really be a shame to lose that for IM support.

But more importantly, Williams’ entry makes Twitter more transparent. Web 2.0 and social media are supposed to be about transparency and connecting with users, after all, and saying you’re going to do something you have no intention of actually doing is a great way to alienate your user base.

It’s dangerous to not give your users what they want, but it’s much more dangerous to lie to them.

The story itself is very simple, and the writing isn’t anything special. But I think it is a good example of what we can do, at least to start out.

And it taps into the ultra-local market, which is the place newspapers need to be.

My feed went crazy for the past two weeks, with people sending out near-real-time reaction tweets to both political conventions. If you’re a political reporter and aren’t following those kind of people, you’re missing out on a real wealth of sources.

And even for local issues, it’s a great way to get reaction to big happenings. Simply ask a question to your local followers and they respond. You can gauge if the issue matters or not, and if it does, you can try to turn those followers into sources.

Don’t know where to find local people to follow? Try Twellow, a search engine that compiles where people are from.

Twitter is constantly evolving. How are you using it differently now than you were six months ago?

The lesson: You do so at your peril.

I’m not sure if this is a British thing or a newspaper thing. I don’t know many places that wouldn’t even bother to post such comments, though I do know many that would simply ignore it. Or, worse yet, not even bother to read it.

The commenters aren’t just addressing each other; sometimes they’re addressing us, as well. And maybe they’re wrong or biased. But maybe they’re right. It’s our responsibility to make sure we figure out which is the case, and if we’re wrong, we need to fix it quickly.

Otherwise, we could find ourselves making enemies.

Now if you did all of the parts of every step for every story, you’d be accused of not being productive enough. But I think reporters could learn a lot about the different ways to find and disseminate information, and there’s a lot of really great ideas in the post.

So what have you done to bring your reporting more into line with Web 2.0?

The site has a bunch of videos now, of varying levels of production quality, ranting or raving about Crocs. It’s an unusual idea for a company, to give hate the same billing as love. But it makes sense.

There are a lot of places for people to spew hate on the Internet, so why not try and corral it when you can?

And for newspapers, it’s even more useful. We are — and we should be — polarizing. People will be angry about our editorials and have opinions about our stories. Why not give them a place to talk? It would be useful to find out what people are thinking and what we might need to change.

There will inevitably be the usual trolling: OMG yr paper is teh sux0rz! Die plz. Kthxbai

The Crocs site doesn’t have to deal with that as much, because they set a relatively high bar to entry. But we can igore the useless comments and work on fixing the problems we find. It helps to follow Chip Scanlan’s advice to Be a sponge, be a duck.

So are any papers out there giving people a place to talk specifically about the issues they have with the paper?

The points made are pretty valid: commenters are often rude, off-topic or both. Newspapers would never publish much of what’s said in comments on their editorial pages, and people are allowed to hide behind pseudonyms.

The writer makes the argument that newspapers should be in the news business and blogs should be in the business of trafficking in comments. But that misses the point. Comments, no matter how nasty, are a useful addition to newspaper stories.

Comments are not a conversation. That doesn’t mean they’re useless, though. There are lots of ways to have conversations on the Internet, and newspapers are looking to add more all the time. But the gut-level reaction that stories provoke is worth giving its own forum.

Take our recent live coverage of Barack Obama’s visit to Cedar Rapids.

One person wants to know why we’re bothering, when people could just read about the visit in the next day’s paper. I’ll leave you to absorb the irony of making such a comment on a Web site.

Others spend a lot of time arguing about Obama’s merits,  in sometimes crude terms. But they’d be doing that anyway. We’re just letting those comments take place out in the open.

That’s part of the new mission of the media. We’re not just telling people what’s happening anymore, we need to listen to what they have to say, as well.

We need to do more to foster real conversations and to make sure the trolls don’t take over. But that doesn’t mean we should stop letting people comment on our stories.

The name came from Gazette editor Steve Buttry, and is a pretty good description. I’ll be helping move the paper toward becoming more interactive.

The idea is that we need to implement features to get our readers more involved. It’s not the only tool in the tool box, but giving people a place to come together is a way we can start to help foster community.

I’ll be blogging about what we’re trying, what works and what doesn’t, and the long road toward our vision. Should be a fun ride.