« The A+ list of Aussie bloggers | Main | Comment is king »
February 28, 2006
You're not really a blogger if ...
What is it about blogging that causes so many of the people who do it to believe they've been anointed to an online College of Cardinals, with their own personal stone tablet engraved with The 10 - or possibly 20 - Commandments of Blogging?
Break one of these rules, by thought, word or deed, and you'll be excommunicated and/or boiled in oil by some self-appointed Torquemada.
It must be a lot of fun being one of these Princes of the Blogging Church, because you get to change or re-interpret the rules at will, and terrorise the heretics.
Having been admonished and stripped of our membership in the Official Mother Church of Blogging for a variety of transgressions, we thought we should try to compile a list of Venial Sins, Cardinal Sins, Sins Material and Formal, Sins of Omission and Commission, to help you preserve your immortal blogging soul.
Some of the real baddies that can get you listed officially as a lapsed blogger are: Being a journalist. Journalists, according to the Office of the Promulgation of the Faith, are by definition, not bloggers.
Knowing how to spell.
Being paid to blog. Bloggers take a vow of poverty and chastity. A devout practitioner of the faith cannot demand or accept payment by subscription or invoice. Donations may be OK. Or maybe not. Depending.
There are also a series of technical fouls that can result in an official demand for the return of your rosary beads and catechism. Our most recent order of excommunication was dispensed by Paul Montgomery - possibly miffed by the fact that we accidentally omitted him from our A+ list (since corrected) - who ruled that we were "not inherently blog-like", due to a lack of hyperlinks, aggravated by the fact that even such hyperlinks as there are on these pages have "been added post-facto to a print-centric article". Furthermore, "quotes from external sources are handled in-paragraph in quote marks, not encapsulated in blockquote tags".
The list is necessarily brief, due to the fact that we're required to self-flagellate for two hours a day as an act of penance. But we'll get back to the topic. We'd appreciate it if you could send us your own list of sins, so that we can commit them too. Purely for research purposes.
Posted by cw at February 28, 2006 12:26 PM
Comments
CW, I would not worry about Paul.
He is an "ex-journalist" and I can see why.
He has the honour of being the first blogger to be removed from my reading list for consistently getting the facts wrong and for the personal attacks he makes of people.
Posted by: Stephen at February 28, 2006 02:35 PM
blog shmog. i don't work in media/internet. i use internet content for all sorts of things, but predominantly they do not relate to my job or personal life. bleeding edge is entertaining and informative. it keeps me coming back. that'll do for me.
Posted by: jc at February 28, 2006 04:35 PM
Thou shall gratuitously provide a million links on your blog roll only if the other million does in return.
Thou shall never flame or call into question anyone on your blog roll.
Thou shall develop a narcissistic personality and no-one will EVER call into question your authority or knowledge on anything you post.
...more when I think of them.
Posted by: Scott at February 28, 2006 06:56 PM
Hello CW
I have just had 3 go's at typing in your security code. have you no sympathy for we dyslexic persons who cant spell. As a test I have to subtract my typin from the security code and if it is divisable by 9 I have transposed.
We have typekey sign in but we dont know whether we have to use the security code as well.
To add to our frustrations we tried to submit a comment on this topic earlier only to be told that we needed to submit it again later, after the timeout had wiped our once in a lifetime eloquence from the ether. Of course it is your fault. How could it be mine?
Befuddled by the consumption of an excellent sparkling red I will attempt to recreate my masterpiece. At least we can still dig up the Roman tile tapestries.
I (we) have read with interest the saga of blog standards and its various proponents and antagonists.
We are tempted to say to one and all "get a (blog) life.". The entrails may be oh so important to the bloggers but to this blogee they are but a fart on the wind.
I am reminded of the hospital without patients and the school without students. Successful, efficient but who cares.
You will all survive or fail on the strength of of your faithful blogees, whether you are profitable or not. I have already put my money where my mouth is, or was it my foot?
You will (hopefully) realise by now that I have no time for the posturing that is going on about journalists, profitability etc.
Give the punter some credibility to sort out the bullshit from the rest.
I did think it more than a little "Academy Awardish" for bloggers to determine the best blog sites, including their own.
Steven
Posted by: steven at February 28, 2006 10:11 PM
My biggest sin (possibly, I'm sure I commit a few) is not actually using the word "blog" on my site. There's no blog in the url. There's no blog in the title. The word may occasionally crop up in an entry, but I keep the use sparse, if at all.
Oh, and if anyone wants to pay me, I'll commit that sin, too...
Posted by: Alex at February 28, 2006 11:16 PM
People who think journalists shouldn't blog forget that it is editors and proprietors run newspapers.
Posted by: tflip at March 1, 2006 02:22 AM
There are probably only three Golden Rules for blogging: Content, Content and Content. Opinion doesn't really count. Life is too short to be bothered by the musings of those who can't spell. Len Evans once observed that it takes just as long to drink a crook wine as it does a good wine, so you may as well drink the good stuff.
Posted by: Roger Clarke at March 1, 2006 09:35 AM
I can thoroughly empathise with you, Steven. It's most unfair that one's devotion to exploring comprehensively the nuances of red wine should bring such dismal rewards when simultaneously trying to navigate the complexities of technology - hell, even when attempting to navigate the complexities of the English language.
The A+ list is, of course, group satire. Neither I nor Mark is seriously suggesting that either of us belongs on anyone's A + list. We're poking fun at the whole idea of A lists, particularly when they exclude an entire category - journalists who blog, or vendors who blog or whatever.
Why bother with someone else's A list? Compile your own. My personal favourites don't necessarily include any of those I posted in that story - although I do check them all out from time to time.
Posted by: cw at March 1, 2006 09:54 AM
I can't resist the invitation of giving my own A+ list.
bleeding edge of course
webdiary.com.au both the content and the way the site is constructed
Evan Jones Alert and Alarmed http://alertandalarmed.blogspot.com/ that I originally found through bleeding edge
John Quiggin as another economist who saves their collective reputation with his range and his wit http://johnquiggin.com/
Posted by: tflip at March 1, 2006 01:20 PM
Yeah, well, I knew that! Your post was only group satire. Any fool would know that.
Hell, even your comments about the complexities of the English Language, I was born there, were you?
Ok it was Edinburgh, so what? It is closer to England than the Antipodes.
I notice that you avoided my exposition of the mathematical transposition. A typical Antipodean tactic. Of course it is beyond you.
As to the difficulties with technology I can now reveal to the world, from my extensive (expensive) research, the inverse relationship between the consumption of red wine and the mastery of technology (and english).
I invite readers to contribute to my further research. Patrons?, Subscribers?, all will be gratefully consumed.
A list B list? have ye not learned.
We need a coalition. A coalition of the willing against the blogs of mass misinformation.
Rat on your journalist blog, tell tales on your greedy profiteer.
Dont rest until we have turned blogs into a reflection of the world according to Bush.
Yes my friends. The question to the ultimate answer, 48, is SHRUBBERY. Ye shall not pass.
steven
Posted by: steven at March 1, 2006 11:19 PM
Hmmn. I may have been a touch TOO complimentary about the standard of comments on this blog. I suspect Steven may be suffering from a touch of the double malts. :-)
Posted by: cw at March 1, 2006 11:37 PM
Charles,
Is this a blog about new technology (bleeding edge, and all that), or is it a blog about blogging? Frankly, it's getting a bit tiresome.
Posted by: cmlp at March 2, 2006 10:25 AM
Phew! You've got a low boiling point, CMLP. This after we posted on Apple's new products, too. Sometimes we're going to follow a bit of a theme that we might be working on. Security. Telstra. Windows. Apple. And, yes, blogging. The thing is, other people may be interested in these areas, even if you're not. If you're not interested, don't read them. There's plenty of other stuff. Or suggest a topic.
Posted by: cw at March 2, 2006 10:45 AM
I think blogs are part of the bleeding edge so cmlp's point is a bit lost, s/he should perhaps grab the bottle off Steven for a bit?
However I also note there suggestions blogging might have already peaked and thus be slipping off the edge! See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/25/AR2006022500229.html
Posted by: tflip at March 2, 2006 06:22 PM

