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.
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.
// posted by ElisaC @ 10:13 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
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.
Post a Comment
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.
<< Home
