Blogpower
Blogs are like newspapers in, at least, this one respect: the most popular aren’t necessarily the best. I read quite a few blogs whose writing makes me want to spit (they’re so good) but their visitor stats make me want to weep (they’re so poor).
Although, as has been said before, when it comes to blogs it’s largely a question of who is reading them rather than how many (the other writing opportunities that Chicken Yoghurt has brought me are inversely proportionate to my visitor figures, for instance), wider exposure doesn’t hurt anybody.
I hold the – possibly naive – view that, with blogging being a peer-reviewed medium (via linking, comments, trackbacks etc), the quality will, generally, out. Blogpower is another way of helping that process along.
Posted on December 13th, 2006 at 2:29pm under Blog, bloggers and blogging
| Related posts... • Robert Sharp: The Impact of Blogs • A heartfelt plea to non-bloggers • Orwell for all (again) |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 5 Comments |
I’ve never got myself one of those counter thingies that tell you how often your site’s been visited. On two grounds : first, that I find techy stuff, even if it’s easy, exceedingly hard, and second, that I’m scared what it’ll show…
I agree. I signed up for the Blogpower thing as, rather than some idiotic “code of practice”, having numerous people with varying political views check over what I write seems the best way to keep me sharp and honest.
(Plus the increase in traffic is great boost to the old ego – no denying that.)
Chicken Yoghurt writes of calibre: the quality will, generally, out – and just look at the calibre on that roll now.
I know we can visit sites and leave comments by ourselves but it has to be more than that. Example: One of our best lady bloggers was in the middle of a discussion about a UK issue and commenters were to-ing and fro-ing about it. Then, right on top of that, some bozo came in and commented “This is a good blog”, together with the link to his site. He’s now got himself onto a major blogger’s site now and good luck to him for what it’s worth.
This is not what it’s about – the mania for traffic but I didn’t understand that earlier. It’s about taking what the blogger has written, stewing it over and if necessary, giving him hell over it. But at least being informed on the issue. I want twenty blogs which do this and therefore twenty visitors and I’m happy.
There’s nothing to agree with there, is there? That said, I can’t actually find the statement on the site that you’re quoting – or any statement of intent. I suspect that this is more to do with blogger’s beta edition than anything else. Since I upgraded, I’ve lost control over what postings the site will display and which ones it won’t.
So, in it’s absence, I’m guessing that it doesn’t make my favourite point, so I’ll make it here:
The MSM has to be interesting and entertaining. If you write an article for a newspaper that nails all of the issues and is very accurate but not very interesting or simplified enough for the general readership, it will get spiked. I would argue that this issue is more serious than most people acknowledge, and that the MSM, therefore, has such an overwhelming bias for demagogic simplification that it is not a useful guide to public life.
Personally, I would rather write what I actually think for ten readers than have to write what I’m pretending to think for ten thousand.
And socrates would have probably agreed that a weblog with a handful of readers is more valuable than a newspaper with millions.
Disagree with me if you like, but pick an argument with Socrates at your peril
Argh!! That last post should have started “there’s nothing to DISAGREE with there, is there?”
Apologies.