Why I don’t understand the weblog hype – Part One

has asked me to try and collate my thoughts on weblogs and why I don’t find them exciting or important.. I guess he values my opinion, or likes to hear me wank on like my opinion is important. Regardless, who am I to pass up an opportunity to pretend I am a pundit.

For those that are interested, here are some of my opinions on the whole weblog phenomenon. I have entitled this “Part One” as I am uncertain if I will revisit this topic in the future; yet I am certain that this will not represent the entirety of my views on the topic.

I joined LJ real early, I am user #6045, and my motivations were simple: A friend, Kate, out “there” (in the bay area) had created one earlier that week and I wanted to comment in her journal. Then I made the decision to replace my written journal with this online one as an experiment. I was in college and it was a way that my folks and friends back in NJ could keep up with what was going on.. This was back in the day when I was working with , , and , and the day I started mine I showed it to jerry who signed up soon afterwards.. Soon after many of my friends at CSH and elsewhere started using LJ to simply comment in others’ journals or to start their own. Some of the used it as real journals, others used it for more weblog type purposes (posting links, etc), and most fell somewhere in between. But to me the important thing was the connection I was able to keep with my friends (both RL and not).

Now I started this journal over two years ago now, and at some point between then and now this whole weblog thing started gaining momentum.. Everyone talked about it as some sea-change; “putting journalism back in the hands of the people” or similar phrases were often used to describe the phenom. It seems to me that the term weblog breaks down into 3 different (non-exclusive) categories:

  • Personal Journals such as LiveJournal
  • Link-posts sites like Slashdot
  • News sites sometimes run by Journalists and other times run by “regular people”

Each weblog out there blends these 3 styles together in some manner, and I have probably missed some other styles. Anyway, I started seeing more and more hype surrounding the phenom, and began thinking about it. And here I am, one year later, still uncertain of why people are so excited. My confusion and dismissal are really founded on two major gripes, one foundation gripe and the other an implementation gripe. LiveJournal addreses both my gripes with the larger weblog set.

My problem with the foundation of weblogs is that I simply don’t understand what makes them different from any other media. When I began using the Internet back in 1992, I found so many documents, reports, and opinions about how the Internet was turning the tables on media creation and publishing. All of these opinions were that the Internet was going to let the common people take control of the airwaves, per se. And as the web grew into a pop-culture phenomenon this was proven to be insightful and completely wrong at the same time. Because while it is true that more people were given the power to publish work, the media congolmerates also obtained that power, and used their already extensive influence to replace the noise of the common with the signal of the few.

I have no doubt that while it is obviously possible for a weblogger to become an important information distribution source, they will continue to hit the same roadblock that has plagued the Internet since it’s popularity has risen: Seperating the wheat from the chaff. As more people start weblogging it will become harder to identify weblogs, articles, people, etc. which are worth reading. Weblogs are in their infancy today, yet even a tool like Google (who’s index algorithm heavily favors weblogs) has seriously difficulty narrowing the scope for you at all. What is going to happen is that there will be aggregation services, which will syndicate stories from weblogs around the web to make it easier for the common person to find. Sound familiar? Good, because this is exactly what we have today: Whether you are talking online or off, every form of news media is simply an aggregator of stories. While some new renowned journalists might rise out of the noise, it is still going to be a handful of people. While the stories that these aggregators syndicate may change, the song remains the same.

I just don’t see how this is different from what we have had for years. I have thought about this real hard and I have listened to the arguments of others, and I still fail to see this simple thing. While I don’t argue that this simple evolution doesn’t expand the scope of journalism a bit, I don’t see the big deal.

My implementation argument has to do with the implementation of almost every weblog I have seen to date. What attracted me to LiveJournal was the little link under each one of my posts: “Post a Comment”. These three words attracted me to LJ and are what has kept me going with my journal this whole time.. I wouldn’t have written a lengthy review of the SliMP3 or iPod had it not been for the discussion forums, as I would have had no idea if any one was reading my words. I am not talking about hits, I am talking about feedback… LiveJournal provides such a rich, threaded, discussion forum, and my journal addiction comes from hearing peoples reaction to what I write (as well as my reacting to others). LJ also notifies me when someone responds to me, allowing me to continue discussion while it is topical (as opposed to when I remember to check the forum).

All of the weblog packages I have looked at have had piss-poor discussion systems. To me, if there was to be one thing interesting about weblogs, it would be the tighter binding between the journalist and their readers, yet “blogs” seem to toss this by the wayside. Services like Blogger and MovableType focus too much on the publication of stories/entries, and not enough on the interaction between writer and reader. And this is why they fail to interest me. The one thing I would have given this steamroller of a phenomenon and it is cast away like a stepchild.

Take one of the threads in ‘s new MoveableType based weblog as an example. MT’s token effort towards supporting non-threaded commenting obviously falls short once some serious discussion starts taking place.. Imagine trying to wade through 30 comments, and keeping track of who is replying to who and what discussions you are interested in becomes a nightmare.

So those are some of my thoughts regarding weblogging. And who knows, perhaps I am just a curmudgeon. It wouldn’t be the first time I completely missed the technology mark

18 thoughts on “Why I don’t understand the weblog hype – Part One

  1. Nailing jello to the wall

    I agree with many of your points – “blogs” don’t do any more to empower the common person than your average Angelfire homepage does. I mean, from one perspective, a blog is just another web site, right?. It has items, headlines and links, pages get updated, sites evolve. Are blogs any different than web pages have ever been? And if not, then why all the hype?

    Well then, what is a blog? It’s probably more meaningful to ask whether a blog is journalism than it is to ask what a blog is. Or maybe it’s just easier to answer that question meaningfully. I’ll leave it up to the OED to define blog. As for journalism…

    My problem with the foundation of weblogs is that I simply don’t understand what makes them different from any other media.

    To your point that the large conglomerates come along and steal eyeballs away (thus robbing the potential of everyman to publish and make a difference), I understand the concern and used to agree, but the amazing popularity of LJ and of weblogs in general proves that people absolutely do crave non-conglomerate sources of information and entertainment. These small self-published sites are actually popular and well-read, even well-respected. There are blogs that break news stories (not just reflect existing stories, but break new stories), and blogs that tell the story in a way you can’t get through mainstream media. blogs do provide something different, and that difference is what appeals to the news-reading public. The big boys actually are feeling the heat as eyeballs become more evenly distributed between traditional media and small publishers, and blogs are mostly the reason for that.

    So our fears that conglomerate information entities would swallow up all the online thunder may turn out to be unfounded. If anything, the huge popularity of blogs has proved that the little person has a place and a voice online after all, and the blog phenomenon is the medium of this voice (well, the blog solidifies and enhances the role previously occupied by the personal homepage).

    they will continue to hit the same roadblock that has plagued the Internet since it’s popularity has risen: Seperating the wheat from the chaff.

    Totally. But that’s the central problem of the information age, and is not specific to blogging or journaling. Things like aggregators and friends pages and Tivo let us consume increasingly massive amounts of filtered information. Ironically, it is the role of the blog to do exactly that – filter through massive amounts of information and bring just the best bits to the reader. The problem is, you have millions of blogs all attempting the same thing. So if a blog is defined as an info-glut reducer, then we have a glut of info-glut-reducers (I’m just realizing this irony for the first time now).

    1. Re: Nailing jello to the wall

      Hehehe, I responded to these posts completely out of order. :)

      So if a blog is defined as an info-glut reducer, then we have a glut of info-glut-reducers (I’m just realizing this irony for the first time now).

      Exactly, and this is something that will not change… Until the “blog” community really starts focusing on these problems (which I think will be very difficult to solve) the “movement” won’t have any chance of real success.

      And another thing that really bothers me (although this is more of a nuisance that I could overlook) about so-called professional webloggers is that they have this unexplicable need to make up terms such as “blog” or “blogosphere” (if you thought the former pissed me off, I felt like killing a nun the first time I heard the latter).. How can anyone be expected to take a medium that uses ludicrous terms like this (especially blogosphere)….

      1. Re: Nailing jello to the wall

        Until the “blog” community really starts focusing on these problems (which I think will be very difficult to solve) the “movement” won’t have any chance of real success.

        There’s nothing for the blog community to solve. The good stuff will rise to the top and the bad stuff will be forgotten. It’s like saying that MP3.com will never work because it lacks record execs to tell you what to listen to. No – the multiple voices are exactly what’s great about it. Users have to decide what to read and what to ignore. Just like we went from ABC, NBC, and CBS to 500 cable channels in a couple of decades. It’s not “solved”, it’s just different from how it was.

        Real success? By any measure, the blogging phenom ;) is already radically succesful. I wouldn’t call it a movement though, as it’s not organized and has no central principle. There’s just a new mode of self-publishing out there, is all.

        have this unexplicable need to make up terms such as “blog” or “blogosphere”

        All industries / professions create vocabulary as necessary to describe newly arisen elements of their universe. Can you think of a better single word to describe “the constellation of all web logs or journals?” I think “blogosphere” is great – it’s self-descriptive, and sounds and looks great.

  2. Jello to the wall, pt. II

    Sound familiar? Good, because this is exactly what we have today: Whether you are talking online or off, every form of news media is simply an aggregator of stories.

    I think you’re missing the critical distinction between most media and most weblogs. Most media originates stories, while most weblogs reflect or repeat stories, link back to them with some tidbit of commentary thrown in for good measure. I forget who I’m quoting here, but “The difference between a journalist and a weblogger is like the difference between an elephant and a dung beetle.” Journalists often see the webloggers as just parasites, growing their own egos and popularity off the backs of the journalists’ hard work. A real story in the media takes at least half a day to research and write, often much more. The average weblog post takes a few minutes.

    It’s dangerous to put the average weblogger and the average journalist on the same plane. Most forms of media are not simply aggregators of stories – they are originators. In the sense of dealing with info-glut, your journal and the NY Times may both represent a lot of content to be sifted through, but that’s a pretty rudimentary similarity.

    All of this gets messier because there are bloggers our there doing actual stories, originating actual content, taking care with their posts, vetting for quality, researching facts, and in general acting like real journalists. And there are news organizations that try to slam stuff out too fast and do sloppy work and just rip stuff off the AP wire, and in general act more like bloggers. Hence it all gets messy and clear definitions/distinctions are difficult.

    1. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. II

      I think you’re missing the critical distinction between most media and most weblogs.

      Ahh, but the distinction is a tenuous one… While it is true that your average weblogger puts 5 minutes of work into their posts (generally just rehashing/linking/stealing someone else’s work), it doesn’t change the fact that a reporter is a reporter.. They might dig up the story, but the story was always there…

      Hence it all gets messy and clear definitions/distinctions are difficult.

      And this is really part of my argument: That most “journalists” are just as lazy as the laziest weblogger… There are notable exceptions; people who truly work for their stories, but the majority of news that is presented to us today is rehashed garbage from the wires…

      1. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. II

        They might dig up the story, but the story was always there…

        Is that supposed to be like the old Michelangelo anecdote about sculpture – “Just chip away all the stone that you don’t want?” Really not sure what you mean by that.

        And this is really part of my argument: That most “journalists” are just as lazy as the laziest weblogger… There are notable exceptions; people who truly work for their stories, but the majority of news that is presented to us today is rehashed garbage from the wires…

        There are thousands of newspapers and TV and radio stations out there, all of them employing dozens of reporters, all of them out there in the field every goddam day covering stories and digging up dirt, etc. I’m really not sure what you mean now, but it sounds a lot like an insult to the entire profession. I’m not saying there isn’t some shovelware out there, but when you say something like “most” journalists don’t work for most stories, I can only respectfully suggest that you get closer to the profession before making pronouncements like that.

        Open up any newspaper and count the number of stories that come off the wires vs. the ones that are original – that info is right there in the byline. It’s no secret. And if you find that most of them are coming off the wire, you might try reading a different paper.

  3. Jello to the wall, pt. III

    The scope of journalism is expanded because real journalists are reading slashdot and many other sites, taking the pulse of the world and getting story tips from the blogosphere. And the scope of journalism is also changed because the reading public is beginning to divide their time between traditional media (even in its online form) and the blogosphere. The scope of journalism is most definitely being affected by this phenom, which is why Berkeley decided to do a class (I hasten to emphasize that the class is on intellectual property, merely using the blog as a vehicle of expression for ideas coming out of the class, and to track movement in IP “out there.”)

    As for LiveJournal discussions and the whole community aspect, you’re absolutely right – it’s an amazing thing. Honestly, I’m missing it so much already it’s making me question my recent jump. Comments on my posts have dropped almost to zero, and it sucks. But while community may be important to some, it may or may not be a necessary ingredient of a succesful weblog – there are certainly hundreds of successful weblogs without any discussion whatsoever. We enjoy it, but that’s all. Remember, the question at hand is, “what is your problem with the blog phenomenon?” The answer, “LJ is as much a community system as it is a publishing platform” doesn’t really help to answer that question.

    The phenomenon is too new to even say exactly what it is, and it’s too similar / overlapping with other technologies and publishing platforms to ever seperate it out from other systems perfectly. But at the same time, it’s not a figment of the tech journalists imagination – it’s distinct enough to put a finger on, interesting and empowering enough to shake things up a bit, puzzling enough to research and explore. I don’t think journalists are under a collective hallucination in seeing this thing shaking up their profession. It’s been a major topic at every conference and event I’ve attended in the past year or so.

    Side note: I think it’s important that we take care to distinguish between a personal journal and a blog (which is odd of me to say, since I mix personal and public commentary freely in my own journal/blog).

    Bottom line: Call it what you want – (see title of this post) – if it’s good, you’ll get readers. You’ll be considered “good” if you get your facts right, make observations that resonate for others, don’t look too much like a million other blogs, and so on. And if you’re not in it to gain readers, but just want a digital personal journal, that’s fine too (although it raises the question of why do it online at all).

    Thanks for the provactive post.

    1. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. III

      Remember, the question at hand is, “what is your problem with the blog phenomenon?”

      My problem is that I don’t see anything special, interesting, or important about the weblog phenomenon.. It is the same ol’ shit being rehashed in a slightly different fashion…. My problem is how can I find a weblog that meshes well with my interests if the noise level is so high.

      “LJ is as much a community system as it is a publishing platform”

      But this was only part of my argument (see the foundational part)… And while I should have said it explicitly, my feeling is that there is nothing special about “blogs” without the community aspect…

      1. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. III

        My problem is that I don’t see anything special, interesting, or important about the weblog phenomenon.. It is the same ol’ shit being rehashed in a slightly different fashion….

        It is true that weblogs are similar in ways to things that have gone before – they’re still web pages, they still have links… they’re not radically different from what’s gone before. But it sounds like all the things I pointed to in my response about what makes weblogs unique and interesting and worthy of study did not register. I mean, DVDs aren’t radically different – they’re the same old movies, in a different delivery medium with a few new features. DVDs are about the same level of different from VHS tapes as weblogs are from personal homepages. But you wouldn’t say that DVDs aren’t unique enough to warrant discussion, would you? I’m just not seeing what you’re not seeing, I guess.

        There is something special about blogs, even without the community aspect.

        – Self-publishing has never been this easy.

        – The editorial/filtering role is now in the hands of every person (in a way that it wasn’t two years ago).

        – RSS has moved the newswire feed from a push model to a pull model, and everyone can now have their own news feed.

        – Blogs are so popular that old media is concerned about the eyeballs moving away from centralized media companies and out into the field.

        – A journal was almost always a private thing. Now the concept of the public journal, with links, is an established part of the landscape.

        – Two years ago the phenomenon (you yourself describe it as a phenomenon) didn’t exist – now it does. Clearly something is differnent from the same old shit.

        It’s new, it’s interesting, it’s making a difference. I don’t get what you don’t think is new about it.

        1. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. III

          But you wouldn’t say that DVDs aren’t unique enough to warrant discussion, would you?

          Warrant discussion? Of course they warrant discussion… But who would treat DVDs as if they are some groundbreaking new medium? Nobody.. There is nothing groundbreaking about DVDs.. Everything the DVD brings to you is canned from prior technologies, just presented in a smaller form.. The only really new things that DVD brought with it (seamless branching and multi-angle), and they are rarely used (and never really interestingly used, imho).

          Two years ago the phenomenon (you yourself describe it as a phenomenon) didn’t exist – now it does. Clearly something is differnent from the same old shit.

          I describe it as a phenomenon for lack of a better word.. And if something is different, it certainly isn’t a sea-change.. I still don’t see any real promise for this “new thing”, and just because some news houses are quakin’ in their boots doesn’t mean it will ever become anything..

          I see the points you raise, but but I see a simple evolution (and I stress the word simple) of the publishing models being used on the internet (or more specifically, the WWW) all along. I still can’t see the day where people are really bothering trying to hunt down the RSS feeds they are interested in… You are giving the masses more credit than they deserve…

          1. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. III

            I still don’t see any real promise for this “new thing”

            One of the interesting anecdotes that came up at the weblogging panel we threw the other day was a pundit who had a clip of himself saying in 1999 that this whole “internet diary” fad thing would blow over and be done with by 2000…

            As for people digging up RSS feeds, it will be as simple as clicking the “Feed” icon on a website to add it to your aggregator, easy as or easier than bookmarks.

    2. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. III

      Thanks for the provactive post.

      And thanks for the provacative replies..

      I would love to see weblogs become an important (to the public) source of information distribution, but I just don’t see it happening… Perhaps as the goals, tools, and standards of the “movement” gel I will change my tune…

      1. Re: Jello to the wall, pt. III

        It is absolutely happening, right here right now – that’s *why* you’re seeing so many articles about it. If blogs weren’t making a difference in the way people get their information, you wouldn’t be seeing all the coverage about and interest in the phenomenon.

  4. One problem I have with your piece….

    The term “phenom”.

    I’ve seen you rant about the term “blog” and I agree, and phenom grates me in exactly the same way…

    –Kurt

  5. Information…

    That’s what its all about… information.

    You’re right: “I found so many documents, reports, and opinions about how the Internet was turning the tables on media creation and publishing.” It has. Now anyone can post information on the net… all it takes is a bit of knowledge, a small bit of cash, and a will to do it.

    I never fully realized until the internet, how much extraneous crap there was out there. There is sooooo much information out there, that now you have to do something you never had to do through previous media outlets…. you have to “bozo filter” information… separate what’s important to you from what’s important so some other joe-shmoe out there. That’s the burden of the reader.

    Now as the writer, all of us who have been on LiveJournal or Slashdot or OpenDiary, or any of the other weblog or weblog-like services, have been looking for one thing… to know that our ideas are shared or even conflicted. I started and held a diary for a good 3 years on OpenDiary, and just because I loved going online and talking to a few people who don’t know me, just to read a fresh perspective on my own screwed up existance. You speak much of the “Leave a Comment” link at the bottom… its the best thing since sliced bread.

    The feeling you get when someone leaves you a comment that makes you think about what you wrote, and to a lesser degree, the comments of “Hey, cool. Right on brotha'” mean a lot.

    Anyway, I am rambling here, and maybe something here has spurred a new thought or made you feel better about your argument… either way, I feel like I did something good by responding.

    And now, I fear this makes no sense… but then again, that’s why I love LiveJournal… thought, nice and rare and raw, with the blood still dripping from it and a bright red center…

Leave a Reply to shackerCancel reply