Sunday, November 07, 2004

When Is a Blog Not a Blog? Post BloggerCon III Debate.

Got home last night from BloggerCon III and promptly got into a heated "discussion" with the S.O. about the definition of a blog.

I don't think when you talk about blogs it means one, monolithic idea of what a blog is. I brought this up at the closing session yesterday.

To me blogs are a new (and very cool) tool to execute already existing functions...often more creatively, more efficiently, and with a far wider reach...but still what is being done with blogs is still:

1. Publishing
2. Communicating
3. Marketing
4. Entertaining
5. Educating
6. Reviewing and recommending

and so on.

What do I think blogs have in common?

1. Chronological history: it's not a blog if you can't scroll through time to see the evolution of the ideas.
2. Dynamism: it's not a blog if you post once and leave it for a year.
3. Personality: it's not a blog if it doesn't sound like a live person thought it, then wrote it down.

I don't think blogs have to be a conversation.

I don't think blogs have to be a series of short entries (which my S.O. definitely seems to think defines blogs.)

I don't think blogs have to be an altruistic endeavor undertaken purely for the love of telling people what you think.

Blogging technology and blogging tools have evolved to broaden the reach of blogs into a variety of cool applications.

The S.O. really disagrees...and he wants to know where to draw the line.

Interestingly, no sooner did I scan my news reader this morning, but I found this post from the WriteLife blog about, yup, defining a blog. He very wisely distinguishes between blogging technology, blogging's history and blogging today.

I agree. Blogging can evolve beyond a college diary. No, it's not that it can; it's that it has.

Comments:
I see where you're going with your definition on blogging, it sounds like you added up the capabilities of the tool at hand across the 4th dimension of time... hehehe...
I'm new to blogging and I enjoy looking through the posts but really why do you feel a need to define it? The only disagreement I have with you is over the issue of "live flow of discoarse" <- I think that paraphrases it. I like to consider what I've written if only for the purpose of discovering what I'm really trying to say.
I suppose you would suggest this is what happens over a period of entries rather than trying to put it all into one clear consise entry at a time.
Whatever - either way is fine right - its the point of the raving and the ranting that we're looking for. neh?
 
Mary Hodder of core values would disagree. There's a code of honor that is trying to be upheld as the right way to blog. check out her summary of her session

nice to meet you finally, BTW.
 
Nice to meet you too Enoch.

I didn't say we shouldn't have a sense of values when writing a blog. But I don't think Mary would i disagree with me that blogs can have different purposes, different formats, different intents.

And Justin: I actually don't feel the need to define it particularly...I found it interesting that my S.O. DID want to define it, and quite narrowly.

I think my 3 criteria: chronological, regular and individualistic are pretty broad.
 
I'm an artist so you can imagine that my opinion would be very open about art... And I do think creating and maintaning a blog can be an art form... so of coarse I wouldn't want to see possibility narrowed...
I guess I'm talking to your S.O. so I won't rambel on here. I would have liked to see a link to the article that was referenced by the other commentor, but again that's not u, hehehe... Maybe I should go look for a link to the bloggercon debate page...
By the by way ... why do I feel so compeled to make a comment about this... <- compulsions like this always amaze me ... about myself.
www.imagesofthought.com
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?