Blog Blogging, redux
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 26 January 2005 | 10 responses
John at Rabe Ramblings has done us the kind favor of offering this necessary public service announcement to all bloggers. Non-bloggers may find it amusing, but I especially recommend it for all those who write one.
Update: Here’s my previous post on the subject and Stones Cry Out has more.
Update 2: In all seriousness though, Hugh Hewitt’s latest book on Blogs is excellent.
10 Responses to “Blog Blogging, redux”
Metablogitis
Joshua Clayborn seems to have a bad case of meta-metablogitis. What’s worse Joshua, writing about blogging? Or writing about writing about blogging?
Thank you! The self-conscious self-aggrandizement of some bloggers and the incessant trumpeting of the virtue of the “blogosphere,” a term I loathe, have become insufferable.
The last I checked, bloggers were people, as prone to error as the rest of the human race.
What’s more, many of the political bloggers are so ideologically-driven that they hunker down in unhelpful “don’t confuse me with the facts” mode. They’re more biased (and frequently less informed) than the conventional media outlets, conservative and liberal, against whom they self-righteously rail!
Of course I appreciate the props (though the sudden influx of traffic to my blog due to your link is causing me to rethink the whole thing–maybe we really are important!), but is there any chance I could buy an “e” for the end of my name there?
Planning a new 17-part posting series as a result of my newfound popularity, once I decide the metaphysical role my blog plays in the universe,
John Rabe
Very funny. =) I’ve made the corrections John.
Hi Mark,
The metablogging fad will pass. Bloggers like Hugh, Joe Carter, Mark Sides, and myself are simply trying to lay down a little bit of infrastructure to make it easier for folks to find bloggers like you.
Josh, you never answered… What is worse? Blogging about blogging? or Blogging about blogging about blogging? (oh that’s annoying… reminds me of a Jimmy Neutron episode where Sheen went nuts over a similar word arrangement)
Bloggers like Hugh, Joe Carter, Mark Sides, and myself are simply trying to lay down a little bit of infrastructure to make it easier for folks to find bloggers like you.
With all due respect, I’ve been blogging for over three years now and there has been plenty of infrastructure laid. You act as though this whole thing was created yesterday. And I know you don’t mean it this way, but your comment sounds a bit condescending, as if you’re some kind of gatekeeper to others. As for the other question, I think John said it best in his comments:
No offense taken and I apologize to provoke such a response. I guess I should have added a clarifier that the bloggers I mention are only a few “recent” examples. I’m definitely not a gatekeeper.
) and it will continue to grow in the coming years. As a planner, it’s natural for me to ask, is the existing infrastructure adequate to handle the anticipated growth? Is the existing infrastructure providing an efficient service?
I guess I’m a bit confused why you would even write about bloggers who blog about blogging? Why does it bother you? Is metablogging hurting our cause somehow? I would agree that if Hugh and others (myself included) were still doing this months down the line, it would be a problem.
Also, I’m an urban planner by trade. You might have laid infrastructure around here for the past few years, but there has been an explosion of growth in the blogosphere (Sorry for the term Mark D
I guess I don’t see why it is so harmful to plan and try to organize this medium into an effective weapon. I blog because it suits me and it is an effective platform for activism. I think the current infrastructure is not quite adequate and could be more efficient in conveying information to readers. That’s my opinion though. You seem to think everything is fine. No problem.
I blog about blogging on occassion because the book on blogging has several volumes, almost all of which have yet to be written. Whatever subject I choose to blog about, I do so because it’s on my mind. Isn’t that also one of the great things about blogging? No gatekeepers, right?
Why does it bother you? Is metablogging hurting our cause somehow?
No, it’s certainly not hurtful. Don’t read too much into this post. It’s just a half-hearted, jovial look at metablogging. I really don’t care, it’s just annoying sometimes.
I would agree that if Hugh and others (myself included) were still doing this months down the line, it would be a problem.
You’d be surprised. There are metablogs that have been around for a couple years. For some reason they keep doing it.
. . . there has been an explosion of growth in the blogosphere. .
That explosion’s been going on since it started. It’s been exploding for a long while, particularly after 9/11. It’s growing no faster now than it was after 9/11 or leading up to the election.
I linked to John’s post because it’s funny, well written, and it has some truth to it. You can blog about blogging all you want, just know it’ll lose my attention quickly, and I imagine others’ as well.
Thanks for the quick and candid response Josh.
Oh – another thing. In reference to this statement: “Bloggers like Hugh, Joe Carter, Mark Sides, and myself are simply trying to lay down a little bit of infrastructure to make it easier for folks to find bloggers like you.”
I think that bloggers that are able to generate volumes of “unique” traffic and funnel that traffic to other bloggers who inform, edify, and equip readers (like Mark Daniels) provide a valuable service. Hugh is one example of a blogger who provides this service.
I know over a dozen friends at church that reag blogs on occasion because of Hugh. There are others as well who provide this service, but not with the same individual results as Hugh.
Thousands of very low traffic bloggers are read by friends, family and co-workers every day. Josh, this was probably you the very first days/months of your blogging career, I don’t know – I only found you through Hugh about a year ago. It would definitely still be me had Hugh not found my blog only days after I started. These low-traffic bloggers, in the aggregate, are just as important, if not more important, than Hugh, yourself, Glenn, KOS, others… I think Hugh realizes this.
Those of us who occupy the lower floors of Silicon Tower do feed you guys on the top floors unique traffic. Maybe not enough for you to notice, but I notice it because I have old college friends who have thanked me for “hooking them up” by linking to something interesting someone else wrote.
I communicate with dejected low traffic bloggers almost on a daily basis. I’ve even talked a few out of giving up. Every so often I fail though and someone throws in the towell (it happened recently to a longtime friend of my blog – a “blogbuddy”). I don’t want to see this happen.
Therefore, some of my blogging is directed at them. I know they blog for an audience of 12 or so, and when I link to one of them, it really makes their day. That is the nature of being on the very tip of the tail.
For a summer in college I managed a swap meet reptile business, Krafty Reptiles. I had a two-foot Nile Monitor that had a very powerful tail. Each time I put my hand in the cage, I could count on getting a lashing. I want the evangelical tail to be strong and thick for it will serve our cause.
I’m working on a project that, if successful, funnel more “unique” traffic to bloggers like Mark Daniels, ITA, etc.
I wonder…why did you abandon your individual blog for the group blog? Is that not laying down new infrastructure?
Okay, enough… I have class in a few minutes.