Thursday, August 25, 2005
One key bit of blogging etiquette
See if you don't agree:
If you write in a post something to the tune of: "so-and-so thinks..." or "such-and-such doesn't think...", then call me crazy you either:
a) extract some quote that shows so-and-so or such-and-such expressing that opinion
or
b) you link to so-and-so or such-and-such's blog, so people can draw their own conclusions on whether or not you are expressing another person or organization's "thoughts."
Duncan over at BlogHerald does neither in this post where he speaks for the "BlogHer crowd." (I wonder does he think he's citing the thoughts of BlogHer, the organization? Or that he's somehow able to crystallize the thoughts of our large diverse crowd and homogenize them into a single opinion on the topic he's exploring?
But this is par for the course. In an earlier post he somehow managed to define my exposure of what I believe to be the Myth of Meritocracy as a call for segregation.
But at least that time he linked to the post, so people could make their own judgment.
FWIW: my observation is that when people talk about the "A-List" they do happen to only mean and care about the ones in their own space. Thus a political blogger struggling to get an audience is going to be looking at what Kos and Atrios and Instapundit and LGF are doing, and their linking habits. A business and technology-focused blogger is going to have their eyes on Doc and Dave and Robert. So on and so forth.
My joke about the blogosphere is that people always define what makes a blog a "blog" in exactly the way they themselves execute their blogs. I don't grok tagging or trackbacks, so obviously you don't need to implement tagging or trackbacks to have a blog, right? Of course some bloggers don't implement comments, and I'm sure they think a blog doesn't need those to be a blog either.
As to the substance of Duncan's post, I don't see "the demise" of anybody really, unless one equates evolving from being the biggest fish in a teeny tiny pond to being a big fish in a large pond as a demise. I mean I agree with Duncan's basic evolutionary description, but Steve Rubel captures my thoughts when he says: "He's right, but no one should care." Or as I put it the other day:
"Maybe there are tens of thousands of new blogs being added every day, and they might actually supersede the same old thing after a while?"
I mean, let's hope so, right? Or the whole blogosphere will experience a demise!
Oops. I started out with a blogging etiquette tip. But I just broke one of my own. I think it's simply poor blogging etiquette to perpetuate any silly "xxx is dead" memes! And I think I just did.
If you write in a post something to the tune of: "so-and-so thinks..." or "such-and-such doesn't think...", then call me crazy you either:
a) extract some quote that shows so-and-so or such-and-such expressing that opinion
or
b) you link to so-and-so or such-and-such's blog, so people can draw their own conclusions on whether or not you are expressing another person or organization's "thoughts."
Duncan over at BlogHerald does neither in this post where he speaks for the "BlogHer crowd." (I wonder does he think he's citing the thoughts of BlogHer, the organization? Or that he's somehow able to crystallize the thoughts of our large diverse crowd and homogenize them into a single opinion on the topic he's exploring?
But this is par for the course. In an earlier post he somehow managed to define my exposure of what I believe to be the Myth of Meritocracy as a call for segregation.
But at least that time he linked to the post, so people could make their own judgment.
FWIW: my observation is that when people talk about the "A-List" they do happen to only mean and care about the ones in their own space. Thus a political blogger struggling to get an audience is going to be looking at what Kos and Atrios and Instapundit and LGF are doing, and their linking habits. A business and technology-focused blogger is going to have their eyes on Doc and Dave and Robert. So on and so forth.
My joke about the blogosphere is that people always define what makes a blog a "blog" in exactly the way they themselves execute their blogs. I don't grok tagging or trackbacks, so obviously you don't need to implement tagging or trackbacks to have a blog, right? Of course some bloggers don't implement comments, and I'm sure they think a blog doesn't need those to be a blog either.
As to the substance of Duncan's post, I don't see "the demise" of anybody really, unless one equates evolving from being the biggest fish in a teeny tiny pond to being a big fish in a large pond as a demise. I mean I agree with Duncan's basic evolutionary description, but Steve Rubel captures my thoughts when he says: "He's right, but no one should care." Or as I put it the other day:
"Maybe there are tens of thousands of new blogs being added every day, and they might actually supersede the same old thing after a while?"
I mean, let's hope so, right? Or the whole blogosphere will experience a demise!
Oops. I started out with a blogging etiquette tip. But I just broke one of my own. I think it's simply poor blogging etiquette to perpetuate any silly "xxx is dead" memes! And I think I just did.
// posted by ElisaC @ 8:38 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
To be fair although I may be accused of being lazy because perhaps I didn't directly link to your previous posts that continue to promote a division based on old world notions of sex and inequality, the vast majority of my readers know exactly who and what I'm talking about when I generalize about "the BlogHer crowd", but to my credit I've taken the next progressive step further: yourself and the other raving segregationists with your 20th century constructs have not only persued this line of promotion to your own benefit, but are the ones that are in part proping up the so-called "A-List" of grumpy old geek blogging men. Seriously, when am I ever going to read here on your blog about wonderful women bloggers as opposed to how you're all so hard done by, or could I be so bold in suggesting that perhaps your near silence on the wonderful women bloggers in the Feedster 500 for example is because most of them don't share your views on the world?
# posted by 
: 8/26/2005 7:30 AM
: 8/26/2005 7:30 AM
Well, I don't really talk about any of the wonderful bloggers of any gender on any list, I talk about why I don't respect the authority of the lists. (And in fact why I don't think a Top List of Women bloggers isn't the solution either. I just don't think you'll find a post here advocating segregation. If we define "advocating" and "segregation" in the same way, of course.
I must say your contention that I don't support women bloggers is pretty funny.
Post a Comment
I must say your contention that I don't support women bloggers is pretty funny.
<< Home
