MdR's contribution served as a conversation starter, and then he did not contribute again. Nevertheless, he can be considered the primary contributor. Although TH made a comment before the link to the article was posted, he did not contribute further. The network that then evolved contained comments by DA, SD, and the original author of the article, AD.
Most of the contributions made were simply comments made by one of these three on the contribution of another. Three "sub-conversations" developed. One involving SD and DA could be seen either as the contributors becoming side-tracked, or it could be seen as much more relevant than that, with a vivid metaphor emerging around the way that a group needs to first focus on creating fertile ground from which new knowledge may emerge.
The second "sub-conversation" contained input from all three contributors, and is therefore seen as more "busy" or interactive. The third conversation involved SD and AD clarifying matters and exchanging details.
My question relates to how this NEAC helps us understand online communication. Were there missed opportunities for the conversations to have become deeper and more meaningful? The article itself was rich with information which I feel had the potential to be used in the construction of new knowledge about LA.
Would there have been more meaningful activity if more people were attracted to the site as a whole? If the conversation was to include just the three secondary contributors, what could they have done to ensure that their interaction was as meaningful as it could be. One does not always get the opportunity to communicate directly with the author of an article. Such opportunities can surely be better utilised.
From a technical point of view, the NEAC as displayed on my computer was broken up in the sense that comments did not always appear in date order or logical order. Has this got to do with my settings, or the way that contributors used their options when replying or contributing?