One of my pet peeves:
United Methodist blogs give laity greater voice
Mr. Magruder doesn\’t allow comments on his blog to avoid any obscene or inappropriate remarks. But readers e-mail him.
Sorry. It’s not a blog if it simply uses the text entry of a blog tool to post online. It’s a rudimentary content management system; an online word processor. But it’s realy just an online newsletter. It’s not a blog. A missionary getting obscene or inappropriate remarks? Come on! (other than comment spam….but I keep mine open, using registration techniques that requires login. That’s a “blog tool”. I’m committed to providing for comments and trackbacks. I MODERATE becuase I want to keep the comments coming. No comments really does lend the blog to being merely ” an online diary”.
Even posting your email and encouraging email comments robs the reader audience of that conversation. And frankly, it detracts from the possibility of people actually commenting, since it is the comments themselves that often generate other coments. It’s called a THREAD.
Once we start calling these things blogs, we’re stretching the concept.
I suppose that in a sense, this question is kind of like the question “what is church?” (except not quite as important). Many people will say about one church or another: “that’s not a church”, or “that is far from what church is meant to be”….but is it, nevertheless, “Church”? Does the percentage of “criteria met” determine whether or not a given constitution of a body of “believers” “qualifies” as church?
This is actually a good topic worthy of its won post and thread, if I can say so myself. But I will give Eric the credit for causing this connection to happen in my “blog-logged brain”. But, that’s one of the roles I envision for my “blog self” which is named THEOBLOGICAL. I want to continuously raise the issues of what it means and what it CAN mean to be “theoblogical”.
I know I won’t set the standard all on my own; it’s just my assignment of what’s integral to a blog. To me, it detracts from the advantages of blogs. ‘Course, I’m not actually getting many comments anymore, so maybe I’m condemning myself 🙂 But at least I try 🙂
But even the first blogs weren’t what you’re “insisting” they are. They were just, as you mentioned, a collection of links to whatever stuff they thought was cool at the time. People couldn’t comment on stuff (yet) but they could link to whatever they wanted. It wasn’t until comments sections opened up that the conversation started happening.
I think you’ll be hard-pressed to “insist” on whatever you want in the world of technology, especially considering the definition of technology itself is one that is constantly changing, and in fact defines itself by its own obsolescence.
Remember, it’s our arbitrary definitions and boundaries that cause us more trouble and judgementalism than they are worth.
Peace,
Eric
I think they allow for that to make it flexible; so that one can use it as a Content Management System/Online Word processor. It’a also feasible to post some things with comments off, mayube due to some problems going on with spamming, before one can get some registration or filtering set up.
I also don’t think there was a great deal of philosophical thought that went into naming the “weblog”. I would, under my definition, see the “log” as a colleciton of lionks, thoughts, comments, incoming links (and all that Technorati type stuff that “connects” the blogosphere together.
I still insist that it’s only an online magazine or column if it isn’t conversational. Even saying one will answer email is no different than a newspaper columnist putting their email address at the bootom of their article in the newspaper or magazine. It’s not judgmental. It’s just my not wanting to play too loose with the concept; otherwise anything on the web is a “blog”, which it isn’t.
I guess I would tend to disagree. If you’re right, then why does every single blogging tool out there allow you to turn comments off? A Blog is literally a “web log”. It does not mean “web conversation” (bconvo? haha). What you’re actually wanting is to make “blog” synonymous with “conversation that you can see all at once.”
Not everybody has time to respond to comments when they do allow themselves to be contacted by e-mail (i.e. Jamie Smith).
I understand your desire to see people open up the comments sections more on their blogs, but I would be careful in grandstanding about how “BLOGS MUST MEAN YOU TURN THE COMMENTS SECTION ON!!!!” because it just tends to get judgemental; less than charitable, at least.
Peace,
Eric