However, when you say – “I challenge the notion that someone simply reading blogs is not engaged.” – its not exactly – someone reading your blog on a regular course is definitely engaged but someone who just visits once and never returns, neither leaves a comment – it is likely that the content was something that didn’t grab his attention or he didn’t bother to think much about it – that is where we try to say that he is not “engaged”.

Again, to the contrary, today you read something and dont bother to think about it and tomorrow you read something else which brings up the old post you read and triggers a new thought process – now in this case, the new content is actually working as a catalyst for your engagement with the previous read. Now this “engage”ment does not comply with the definiteion of “engaged” as put by Eric. —

Now the main question is how do we determine those multitude of factors, actions and reactions that contributes to a visitors “engagement” factor ?

I feel we haven’t quite cracked it yet, there’s a more complicated, dynamic interaction occuring both difficult to quantify and describe with words.

In particular, I challenge the notion that someone simply reading blogs is not engaged. I read a hundred blogs; I don’t post on every one, yet the passionate words on those pages inspire choices and deeper thinking of my own. Some of this thinking never explicitly makes its way to paper, but I am highly engaged with it nevertheless.

Perhaps civics presents a good analogy: is the man who doesn’t vote disengaged with society? Maybe, maybe not. Voting is just one action, a single decision amongst thousands he makes affecting his world.

I guess I’m still looking for a more penetrating definition.