Josh,

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I've always been one to avoid meta discourse about any subject. (That drove me crazy in college.) However, the blogosphere is a new and growing medium. It's unavoidable that this type of dialogue will occur. One issue on the internet is how to build and maintain trust. Aggregator/metablogs and blogging about blogging help to establish and build trust by letting people know who you are and who others are that you think can be trusted.

However, good point to keep it to a minimum.

Mark

Eh, I guess. But there's a difference between saying "John Doe has a good post about Social Security reform" and "Here's 100 ways to get popular through blogging." Both accomplish what you're talking about and I think the former is a better way to go about it. I've been blogging for over three years now and although the medium is still new, issues about building and maintaining trust haven't changed all that much.

Weren't you actually just blogging about blogging about blogging?

"I understand that it's necessary at times. . . " This is one such time.

Aaron, you beat me to it.

Josh,

Since I actually agree with you for the most part, I don't necessarily want to debate this. However, how do you propose that neophytes, such as me, learn the trade if people like Joe, or even you, don't find a way to pass on tips?

Mark

Like I said, I think it's necessary at times, although you can often email bloggers for tips. My point isn't that it shouldn't be done, but that it's done much too often. The problem is much deeper than mere tips about blogging, though, and runs to things such as deep analysis about blog rankings, etc.

Josh, I have to say I agree with you. I was a fan of Hewitt's blog when I discovered it a few months prior to the election. I enjoyed his commentary on the election and the new events surrounding it (his comments on the first presidential debate not withstanding). However, I have noticed in recent weeks that he's doing more and more what you speak of in this post. I don't find this metablogging particulary interesting (perhaps because I read so many blogs already without people directing me there)and consequently I have been visiting his site less and less. For heaven's sakes he even wrote an entire book about blogs. I agree there are times when it's ok to point out a good post or some good commentary, but original supplemental material is necessary along with it I think.

Grumpy law students in January? Heck, that's when I was happiest. Grades not in yet and no studying needed for three months or so (so long as you're not a first year, that is).

Mark

Dude,
You're boring. Hugh is da bomb.

Josh, if you're blogging about blogging about blogging, then by blogging about this post yesterday, I guess I was blogging about blogging about blogging about blogging. (And I almost used that as a subject header)

And I think you let Hugh off too easy. ;^)


Brent Smith wrote:

"I agree there are times when it's ok to point out a good post or some good commentary, but original supplemental material is necessary along with it I think."

I guess that's why I don't know if I'd consider Instapundit a blogger so much as a "linker." Very little of what he posts contains "original supplemental material."

Drew's point is a good one and is one of the reasons I don't often visit sites like Instapundit. If I visit a blog, I generally want to know what THAT blogger thinks about a given topic.

This discussion reminds me of my distaste for songs about songs. I hate when lyrics are about songs themselves. "Sad songs they say..."

A co-worker asked the following:

"I understand why people write blogs (presumably the same reason people write journals) but why do people read blogs?"