No, I've pointed out that your analogy is useful for pointing out some key elements of bias on your part.
You've completely lost me. The similarity between over- confident pop-idol contestants who can't sing well, and over-confident bloggers who can't blog well, is that their confidence is misplaced. That's what my analogy was about, there was nothing more to it. Mind you, I often make poor analogies.
In what way is posting a link on a blog any more obnoxious an act of "self-promotion" than sending a link to a mailing list, or replying to a BBS (talk about crap writing) such as this one?
Well, first of all, the "crap writing" here is moderated. Perhaps you might not think it's done very well, granted, but at least in principle, what's here is here because a group of people thought it was good. What's on a blog is there because the person who wrote it thought it was good. Big difference. So people who post here are prepared to put their vapid ramblings up to a bit more scrutiny.
But apart from that, i'm not really too bothered about links, in fact I very much like that aspect of blogs. What i'm on about is this this. To be honest, I don't see any equivalence between that diary, and this kind of conversation. Except of course, the crappy standard of writing :).
I'm pretty sure an important point of the original article is that the reason James dislikes MT blogs so much is that their users have a higher propensity to post that sort of (for want of a better phrase) self-engrossed "my life" stuff. It's not all baby pictures, research papers, or even K5-style asinine political commentary. I think you've got to agree with me on that.
I think the problem here is that, neck deep in social networks analysis research, I was using the phrase in a social sciences meaning while you were reading in terms a business "get a job" meaning.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. By "self-promotion" I meant the selling of self as... someone to communicate with. I'm not exactly "neck deep in social networks analysis" but I would suppose (correct me, please!) that any form of communication involves an element of self-promotion in that you have to promote yourself as worthwhile to communicate with, if you see what I mean.
Well, actually yes. I suppose if we wanted to settle this issue, we could try to find a way to do some random sampling, as opposed to me using the sample of people that I talk to and read, and you picking a biased sample that you think shows your point.
Heh seen as i've said a "great deal" of bloggers want to be widely read that would be a pretty interesting study actually. I just see a complete disjoint when sticking a huge diary up in a very public place that is supposedly intended for "friends and family". Besides, as i've tried to point out, it's completely possible for me to think a friend (who desires me to read his blog) has a crap, pretentious blog.
The first two links Invade my Privacy! Read this Blog! is pretty sarcastic in its presentation. The second link to Sanity's Edge is a single post from May 2003 that is obviously sarcastic.
Well I don't know. I guess it's a difficulty to decide what constitutes a desire to be widely read.
The third link to CANADAGEEK reveals the sort of self-reflection about writing style that you have claimed bloggers don't do in their inability to handle criticism:
Aye, but what about a desire for people to read his weblog? Besides, I never said bloggers don't engage in self-reflection - i'm sure i've said the complete opposite in fact! Then, self reflection doesn't mean you come to the right conclusions, of course.
Incidentally (i.e. i'm not trying to say this has any relevance to the above) - leaving aside the aforementioned K5 diaries, in fact, sticking to movable type - what's the ratio of complementary to critical comments?
Of course, I never claimed that there was nobody out there foolishly trying to make money off of their blog. Nor did I claim that nobody wants to reach a huge world-wide audience.
Phew, because you know, I never claimed that everyone wanted to make money off their blog, nor that everyone wanted to reach a huge world-wide audience.
What I am claiming is that in my experience, the intended audience for most blogs is small.
Well, i'm claiming that in my experience it isn't. So, two people arguing away over something completely subjective with barely a shred of supporting evidence between them. I might as well start blogging :)
Disclaimer: All of the above is probably wrong
[ Parent ]