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 soci

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.