3 ms·

Another day, another negative blogging story in the NYT.

by madair 17y ago

il 17y ago
It's not negative, it's accurate. Most blogs (and startups) fail to generate a lot of traffic and get abandoned, that's just a fact.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  It's not negative, it's accurate. You know, it could be both.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    It could be but I don't think it is. If anything it disproves the most common anti-blog slur, namely that blogs are full of amateurs with no talent. In truth blogs are like any other form of media. Those who are good rise to the top, those who aren't fall to the bottom and give up.
- Achorny 17y ago
  That's true but how many blogs are even started with either generating lots of traffic, or lasting forever, as goals? The article implies that all or most do, but some percentage must be started just as experiments or hobbies, and I would hardly call those "failures", not in any useful sense of the word.
madair 17y ago
They completely miss a couple huge segments of bloggers, those who write because they want to write regardless of audience, and those who write for a small social network such as family or friends. I believe they also make an unspoken presumption of posting regularity as a metric for everyone, when in fact many bloggers are far more casual about posting. Then there are statements like, "So why do blogs have a higher failure rate than restaurants?" This makes little sense unless the activity of blogging is simply for commercial success. I really don't think that's a well-meaning attempt at understanding the wide community of blogging and the nature of on-again off-again bloggers who make up a large percentage. This includes myself. I've had several blogs, and currently I don't blog. None of my blogs was a "failure". At each new juncture I had found a new voice in my writing and my previous work was no longer of interest to me to have out there. This is not the experience of all bloggers, it's just my experience. I expect to blog again soon. But with new social networking mediums, such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, each with quite a different flavor and audience, I find that some things that previously would have made a blog entry make more sense as a twitter, or are more appropriate on Facebook, and so on. The article almost, but not completely, misses this complexity to social networking. It is also my completely non-scientific impression that the New York Times more frequently contains a negative take on blogging in general. It would be interesting to analyze that and see if it's actually true or not, it just seems to be the case as far as I can tell.

Another day, another negative blogging story in the NYT.

by madair 17y ago

Another day, another negative blogging story in the NYT.

il 17y ago

It's not negative, it's accurate. Most blogs (and startups) fail to generate a lot of traffic and get abandoned, that's just a fact.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
It's not negative, it's accurate. You know, it could be both.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  It could be but I don't think it is. If anything it disproves the most common anti-blog slur, namely that blogs are full of amateurs with no talent. In truth blogs are like any other form of media. Those who are good rise to the top, those who aren't fall to the bottom and give up.
Achorny 17y ago
That's true but how many blogs are even started with either generating lots of traffic, or lasting forever, as goals? The article implies that all or most do, but some percentage must be started just as experiments or hobbies, and I would hardly call those "failures", not in any useful sense of the word.

madair 17y ago

They completely miss a couple huge segments of bloggers, those who write because they want to write regardless of audience, and those who write for a small social network such as family or friends. I believe they also make an unspoken presumption of posting regularity as a metric for everyone, when in fact many bloggers are far more casual about posting. Then there are statements like, "So why do blogs have a higher failure rate than restaurants?" This makes little sense unless the activity of blogging is simply for commercial success. I really don't think that's a well-meaning attempt at understanding the wide community of blogging and the nature of on-again off-again bloggers who make up a large percentage. This includes myself. I've had several blogs, and currently I don't blog. None of my blogs was a "failure". At each new juncture I had found a new voice in my writing and my previous work was no longer of interest to me to have out there. This is not the experience of all bloggers, it's just my experience. I expect to blog again soon. But with new social networking mediums, such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, each with quite a different flavor and audience, I find that some things that previously would have made a blog entry make more sense as a twitter, or are more appropriate on Facebook, and so on. The article almost, but not completely, misses this complexity to social networking. It is also my completely non-scientific impression that the New York Times more frequently contains a negative take on blogging in general. It would be interesting to analyze that and see if it's actually true or not, it just seems to be the case as far as I can tell.