Take a look at this entry from Dave Pollard.
Huh?
Dave Pollard. From How to Save the World.
Oh! Right. What's it say?
It's titled "Slumming Through the Blogosphere." Seems like Dave spent a lot of time looking at weblogs.
Cheez. I hope he didn't end up with massive cornea hemorrhage.
He doesn't mention, so I guess it wasn't as bad as that. But he did notice some trends among all the timestamps.
Like...?
Like how "pretty design" seems to be inversely proportional to "meaty content."
Should you say "proportional"? Sounds too Latin-rooted for English. Maybe you should use "correlated."
Nah, I'm OK.
Anyway, so what you sayin'? That pretty blogs make for dumb words?
Well, I do believe that the more time you spend on doing a flashy design, the less time you're allocating to writing, revising, rewriting and editing. And if as Dave says, most of those fancy weblogs are of the "omigod i am sooooo not wanting to be studying for next week's history test" variety, I guess their authors are kids with lots of time and Web savvy, but still wet around the ears as far as structured thinking is concerned. Shit! Know what I'm saying?
You know, you should mind your attitude about young people. It wasn't that long ago you were one of them, remember?
Buddy, that thing about "don't trust anyone above 30"? Well, it swings both ways.
You're just 30. You're not "above 30" to give that 'tude.
OK, OK. Anyway, back to Dave.
Yeah, back to Dave.
The other thing he notices regarding the "prettiness" to "interest" radio is that the fancy design at least hides the inane content. I don't think I've heard a better argument to avoid over-designed Web sites.
Uh-huh. Now I'm guess you're going to crow about the plain-bones design of this here weblog of yours...
Hey, never miss a chance to praise yourself.
Spare me the onanism. Anything else?
Indeed! I think the best observation he makes is how many weblogs he found that just seem an outlet for therapeutic writing.
"Therapeutic"?
Let me quote here: "I am convinced that blogging is now, next to Prozac, the leading therapy for people with moderate to severe depression."
Oh, so that's what caught your interest!
Huh? W-what do you mean?
Don't be so coy! What do you think this so-called "dialogue" with yourself is all about?
Shutup, shutup, shutup...
| Points 2 to 4 of your weblog survey are the most interesting to me. It brings to mind that old saying about an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards: maybe someone will someday produce a Shakespearian play, but in the meantime, all we get is a lot of gibberish.
Which, in the end, is quite fine. A meritocratic way of publishing like weblogs allows anyone to take a crack at writing. That means those with something to say and those with nothing to say but don't want to be left behind. They'll write their brains out, and it's up to the reader to separate the chaff from the grain.
That seems to restore relevance to editors, that species so despised these days. But on the blogsphere, the editors we can trust come in the shape of blogrolls and links. Not too different from ol' word of mouth between acquaintances.
Charly Z 3/3/03; 8:24:18 AM |
| Thanks Charly. As I describe in my post today, I think the blogroll is more analogous to a rolodex than an editor, but I get your point. Is the blogosphere a meritocracy? I guess as much as 'real' publishing and broadcasting are: trash, pandering and sensationalism get lots of fickle hits and eyeballs, but real quality will eventually draw in at least enough faithful readers/viewers to pay the rent. I'm really interested in what motivates bloggers to write, and post, besides the promise of fleeting fame, and I'm thinking of doing an e-mail survey of Salon Bloggers to get their POV.
| From comments to "Slumming Through the Blogosphere"
|