Especially at a conference or similar “intentional event” (to make up a buzzword), participants already have some common connection; a moderator / link wrangler is offering a means and a focus for a subset of that connection. It would take a far more gifted presenter than I am to skim a channel, analyze the patterns, and in midflight change course. A moderator / co-presenter / partner can do that, ideally adding to the value of the communication for all.

Great discussion. I attended Masie’s Learning 2009 in early November, and he experimented with using/displaying the backchannel during the plenary sessions. He quickly stopped using the display, as he found that some attendees used it as a way to market their services to a captive audience.

Personally I found it distracting. The speaker was often far ahead in the presentation by the time the tweet appeared, making it irrelevant or causing me to miss the speaker’s next point.

What WAS useful was when Elliott served as a moderator, encouraging questions from the audience in this format, then screening and feeding them to the speaker or interviewee. We got many questions from a wide perspective. And, with the moderator function, the audience also got to HEAR the question, often a problem in group settings. It was also a great way to allow questions while the topic was fresh, instead of waiting until the end for Q&A.

I think it would be a wonderful way to pull in questions and comments from people who might be connected at a distance. What if, for example, a conference allowed companies to subscribe to a feed of sessions that the company displayed in a hallway or lobby via kiosk, webinar, or vidoeconference with the opportunity to provide comments and questions, again moderated by the conference? It would be a great way to bring in new ideas and engage people.

Like you, I’ve benefitted from comments shared (via Twitter, in my case). They’ve helped me grasp some speaker’s main idea, learn about a presenter I hadn’t heard of, see how someone I’m following thinks, etc.

I do think it’s possible to over-technify. If more than half the people on hand are not able to use a channel to communicate w/ each other or the presenter, I’m not sure the presenter should give that channel too much weight. At the same time, if the presenter doesn’t know what’s in a channel (as at HEWEB09) and doesn’t ask for or receive…formative feedback, let’s say…that’s not an optimal situation either.

I realize many presenters don’t necessarily want that, and especially in large keynote events, you’re crossing into lecture-as-entertainment territory.

So the backchannel may seem just good sense to someone who presents in academic or professional settings to people who’ve long since adopted this stuff–though the Boyd case suggests there are a few wrinkles left to iron.

Revisiting an earlier thought: “one size fits all” doesn’t.