Comments on: NEWS FLASH: Think Secret is Not a Blog

By: Boomminty

Boomminty — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:49:17 +0000

Thanks the author!

By: The Apple Blog » “Bloggers” attract AP support

The Apple Blog » “Bloggers” attract AP support — Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:37:08 +0000

[...] t which the public has “a right to know.” Chris Lawson of this publication has already debated the former point, so I shall not ov [...]

By: Lee Bennett

Lee Bennett — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:38:57 +0000

Pierre – think before you draw parallels.

I run a personal photos album powered by the open source Gallery engine. It technically meets all the criteria you mentioned. Organized by date? Check. Viewers are able to leave comments (and vote)? Check. There’s an RSS feed? Check.

I really don’t think anyone would call my photo album a blog!

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:25:31 +0000

I think that today a “blog” means more than some specific kind of site or content organization. I beleive, that in today’s social web structure, any blog could be called “news” site, and almost any news site can be called a “blog”. Its just a matter or perception of information delivery.

On the other hand, all these media announcements that make bad name for a “blog” concept, are of course wrong, they connect a word “blog” with a “rumor” which has bad connotations for common folks.

Cheer up, people. You’ll be much happier when most of web will be blogging, not “making news”.

By: Chris Lawson

Chris Lawson — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:07:56 +0000

I think a journalist with better credibility than those whose credibility he would off-handedly impugn would do some background research and use some common sense, and then realise that these sites aren’t blogs.

But that’s just me.

By: Pierre

Pierre — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:59:26 +0000

you are right, they are not blogs because they don’t have spirit of blogs, but I’not suprised by the articles published by journalists… it could be regarded as blogs because they are organised like blogs. You know that they are not blogs because you read it for a long time, but what would have you thought if it were the first time you came ?

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:31:46 +0000

I agree, as well. Although some sites might have blog elements (such as an archive, dates, and such), most of the aforementioned sites are commercial. Most blogs are people ranting about things or telling how truly boring their lives are. You gotta look at what the content is, not how it's organized.

By: George Lien

George Lien — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:19:25 +0000

Very well said. I thought I was the only person who thought of that fact. I’m glad you have pointed this out.

By: wallyboy

wallyboy — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:33:24 +0000

These are commercial websites. Period.

By: eff

eff — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 02:50:06 +0000

I agree. The first time I ever saw any of those sites referred to as blogs was in stories covering the lawsuit. It seemed odd to me imediately, I thought the people writing these articles were not familiar with mac sites. All of the sites predate the blog-thing, they added rss late in the game and still don’t have trackbacks. Just because the main feature of blogs is their date ordering doesn’t mean anything ordered by date is a blog. That is too generic, macintouch.com is 11 years old and uses that format, I don’t think it is a blog. Frankly blogs aren’t very unique, if you take away the name there is nothing to really distinguish them from any website. I think it suited the free press angle of the stories to call them blogs, which people associate with the-new-journalisim, hype is as hype does.