what is it about bloggers imploding? is this the next phenomena? is this the price of a successful personal site? am I next?
, from oldest to newest:
Of course, when you wear your (virtual) heart on your (virtual) sleeve, you're more open to criticism and personal attacks, and more likely to get burned out.
The Web diary has perhaps seen its day, but I don't see weblogs going anywhere.
Posted by Dave Parker @ 04/23/2001 11:43 AM pst
~~~
But in many ways to me it is the the web diary that is more interesting. Maybe I am just a closet voyeur, but I do feel the narrative in the average web diary is far more engaging (intellectually, emotionally, whatever...) than what I find in the vast majority of blogs. I think it is that engaging narrative that is missing from too many web sites: personal, professional and corporate. I am not talking soap opera here, but I want to be engaged...challenged, even provoked.
Posted by Zethan Mangione @ 04/23/2001 12:53 PM pst
~~~
are YOU next?!?
is your delicate introspective nature getting a wee bit wilted from too much spotlight?
Posted by Mike @ 04/23/2001 11:20 PM pst
~~~
yeah, yeah, okay I'm pretty irrepresible.
the discussion below is pretty intersting... what differenciates a weblog from a web diary? Should they be two different things?
Posted by christina @ 04/24/2001 07:16 AM pst
~~~
again with the "should." (you're picking up bad habits on the bay-chi list missy.)
"should" is a strange word to apply to a free medium. (and i'm speaking about blogs and diaries and other pieces of the personal web here.)
Posted by mike @ 04/24/2001 07:48 AM pst
~~~
Blog and diary can probably be seen as end points on a continuum. Some blogs are lists of links, with pithy (or not) brief (or not) comments that may or may not provide a reflected impression of the person maintaining it (NCSA What's New as the archetype here). Narrative is optional, usually implied or inferred. Diaries' whole purpose is to provide a direct impression of the person maintaining it. Narrative is essential and explicit. Many (most?) blogaries fall somewhere in between these two extremes, providing the occasional extended personal entry rather than just the nifty link, with some kind of narrative, but not necessarily advanced in every entry. The degree of explicit exposition of narrative seems a decent candidate for figuring out where on this continuum a give site fits.
Posted by Ralph Brandi @ 04/24/2001 07:53 AM pst
~~~
Mike, I'm gonna block your IP.
I use "should" to goad the easily excitable into writing....
if you think about it, there's nothing like a strong stance to spur debate. I think Jakob has built a whole career on it.
Posted by christina @ 04/24/2001 10:53 AM pst
~~~
While I have to agree with Ralph in his classification, I think there is a key factor for the webdiaries that does seperate them from many other logs: they are as much (or more) for the author as anyone else. As in most forms of writing the results show.
The interesting thing to me is watching how I (and others) interact with the different sites. Those sites that are primarily just link sites, more date prioritized favorites than logs, are the ones which I am in and out. I scan quickly and go right back out, following whatever link most intrigues me (if any). I visit these sites irregularly as there are so many of them and they generally all have the same linkage (to a large degree) as the mixed sites. Those sites where the author takes the time to add a personal thought or two, their own take or spin, even short journal-type narratives, are the sites that on which I linger. I usually explore those sites more on successive visits, taking my time. Those are also the sites that I am more likely to visit on a regular basis. Those sites that are full online diaries, with regular daily journal-type narratives are the ones that can be very dangerous to my schedule. If the author touches something in me, be it emotional or intellectual, whether I agree or not, I most definitely will return; even daily. I will linger, and before long I will have explored all of the site.
Most of the sites I visit are somewhere in between as Ralph mentioned, but all of the ones that I am regular to have personnal narrative. Maybe not every entry, but often enough to engage me. None of this may be in any way revolutionary, but it does reinforce for me the value of connected narrative.
Posted by Zethan Mangione @ 04/24/2001 04:50 PM pst
~~~
excellent point-- the longest time I've spent recently on a weblog was on kottke's > when he invited a bunch of folks to share stories of the items they collected as kids. This had your favorite element, the personal, along with mine, the conversation. I like weblogs, but I like ones like this one has become even better.. there is nothing like a conversation. I'm even thinking about slashcode fo the redesing, to promote it more.
while data is useful, it's the humans that make it interesting.
Posted by christina @ 04/24/2001 06:04 PM pst
~~~
There's a line of "non-reality" between the person who writes and the writing. By capturing any impression of our individual worlds we are, by definition, dramatizing it.
I am not the Regent; the Regent is not me. Nonetheless, we are the same person.
Whatever words (pictures?, movies?) we choose to publish, no matter how true and personal they are, remain, until examined in collection over time or by some element of direct personal contact with the author, products of creation.
And thereby, they are tales of a persona which presents portions of a person.
Posted by the Regent @ 04/25/2001 08:45 AM pst
~~~
I think mike's fake journal was a really interesting experiment in identity. and it was f*cking funny.
Posted by christina @ 04/25/2001 04:14 PM pst
~~~
Good online conversation is an excellent goal. I too really enjoyed the response to Kottke's recent piece. I have often seen slashdot.org listed as a "blog", but I have always considered it as more of a news and community site. (The problem of labels ?) I miss the days when it was easy to have a good conversation on /. with many opinions and points of view heard. Unfortunately now there are far too many wars, "first posts" and such to really have a good conversation. It got almost too popular. Some of the logs that I regularly visit (personal and professional sites) are providing for those dialogs more and more, although more focused to the blog sites topic and to the initial posting of the author. I think this is an excellent development and would encourage it for a site like this one. With the smaller more focused community of visitors, many of whom will only lurk, the signal-to-noise ratio stays excellent. (I hope)
Posted by Zethan Mangione @ 04/25/2001 04:43 PM pst
~~~
