January 24 2007: On Blogs Not Counting As Content
Filed under Online
I’ve just read a blog entry where the author claimed that a blog doesn’t count as content as it isn’t as original as a personal website. By that logic, Jingwen is totally devoid of content, and there’s absolutely no originality in it whatsoever.
Is my life original? I like to think so. Are my experiences and thoughts original? I like to think so. I’m really quite indignant that she believes herself to be qualified enough in the field of site-ownership to make a judgement upon the originality of my life, and the life of everyone else who merely blogs without the added shackles of a personal website.
I’ve been down the road that she advocates: having a fully personal website with bucketloads of information about oneself. I’ve had bucketloads of written work: articles, opinions, fiction. I’ve had lots of information about the site. Obsidian Rhapsody had all that, and much more. Was it original? Probably not - the majority of you have similar sites that are equally as well-written and designed.
Seriously though, who really cares? Once you’ve read it once, you’ve read it a million times. No one ever goes back to it and re-reads an emo poem you added to your site to make yourself seem tragically poetic and talented. Frequently updated, amusing, and short blog entries are ten times more entertaining than the above-mentioned content.
She argues that the majority of blogs are ego trips for the owner, but what else is a personal website but an ego trip? You’re placing information about yourself online - thus stating that your person is interesting enough to read about. You’re putting your written work/artwork online - thus stating that they’re of a high enough quality to be perused by others. In comparison to personal website owners, bloggers are absolute paragons of modesty.
What’s most amusing of course, is that the author’s website consists of nothing more than a few opinion pieces on the topics that everyone writes on (teenage pregnancy, Harry Potter, etc. etc.), a short list of basic facts about herself, a “50 random facts about me” page, lists of likes and dislikes, and lots of angsty poetry and prose. Original? Sure, if you insist.
21 Responses to “On Blogs Not Counting As Content”
Leave a Reply
I reserve the right to edit or delete your comment as I see fit, though I only delete comments from anonymous commenters, or people with multiple aliases. Using a genuine name/email combination will ensure that your comment is approved.
Aw, that’s horseshit. Who is this naysayer? Name ‘em and shame ‘em.
Although this does raise an interesting issue. Why do people write blogs? Is it some morbid fascination with cataloguing our lives and attaching importance to our existence?
I write a blog because “personal websites” have been done to death and I just couldn’t come up with anything original anymore. Everyone and their grandma had written an opinion piece about the War in Iraq, abortion, preggo teens, bad HTML, cell phones, religion, George W. Bush, the meaning of life, Chuck E. Cheese, bunnies, the fluff that tends to congregate in my asscrack… and it just didn’t feel like what I had to say really counted, seeing as everyone else was doing it. People moan and bitch about bad layouts and stolen HTML like what they have to say is really ground-breaking and fresh or whatever, but all they’ve really managed to do is place themself in that group of people who try way too hard.
I write a blog mostly to entertain. I like to think I’m a worthwhile enough person, but let’s be real, I’m not Christ. I’m not Superwoman. I’m a kid with a computer. I’m not shy about ranting, but really — publishing pictures of crashed airplanes and big bugs isn’t thought-provoking.
Remember, the Internets is serious business, kids.
Jordie on January 24 2007 #
At least she’s a Harry Potter fan, I suppose. (That’s the only good I can find about said person in there, unfortunately.) My website is currently walking the thin line between being blog only and being a personal site.
As it stands, I like your website. I loved your content at O-R but you’re right, I read it, I reviewed it, and only occasionally would I come and read it again.
Whereas blogs change frequently so there’s always more “food for thought”.
Amber on January 24 2007 #
If this is about the girl I think it is about, then I think she’s going to feel extra special if she ever reads this :-P
I read some of the content you had before on O-R, but I always found your blog entries to be much more interesting. I’m a baby of technology, I just love the current :)
For mine, I don’t think I’ll ever have “content”. If that’s what she calls the horseshit she has on hers. Mine is a blog through and through which I have for myself (private posts) and to share things that might be of minimal interest to others. That is what the Internet is for right? Lol!
Kat on January 24 2007 #
I think my site is a mix of both worlds (or I’d like to think so anyway) it has some visitor content, some writting works but mostly updated is my blog.
Blogs are fun, as long as they’re not the “I got up at 6 am, at my breakfast (which consisted of …*), packed my books for school” kind of type.
Witty and funny blogs are cool. I love them. Sure they should have a personal touch, but not too much if you get what I mean..
So the way you write your blogs is very original it’s personal to an extend, witty and all Amanda like we know her from OR.
I wonder who it was that said blogs aren’t content?
*fill in gap yourself
Chans on January 24 2007 #
Amen, sister. *bows*
I think I’ve read that entry too and was contemplating blogging about it, but now you already did and I really couldn’t have said it better. So you just made my day! =)
Susie on January 24 2007 #
Should I start following the masses and delete all my content?
Nah. I can’t be bothered.
Although, I do agree with you when you say that static content is only read once and then overlooked, whereas blogs that are updated regulary will generate more regular visitors etc, blah blah. Both are equally as narcissistic and really, both count.
And why am I not reading these blogs? Where is everyone getting all this from? I feel so uninformed!
Tracey on January 24 2007 #
Blogs? Not content? That’s the most rubbish thing I’ve heard all day!
True about the updated thing though. I love checking blogs because they’re never the same (well, if said blog is updated of course), and every new blog entry is a new idea. YAY FOR BLOGS! *dies of the exhilaration… or whatever that word is*
Retti on January 24 2007 #
Saying blog entries is not content compared to personal sites is ridiculous. However, I think there is a distinction to be made between blog (and personal sites) and other types of sites, e.g. review sites, graphics sites, comprehensive fan sites etc. I can’t help but think that the latter types might suit the more standard idea of web “content” than blog entries.
I think this may be because blog entries and personal sites is based on content of what you’ve experienced and about yourself, and arguably this is easier to write and update as it requires little research and less time to say, look up information about a character or make a custom layout or review another site. Of course there are noted exceptions if you compare blog entries that authors may have spent a great deal of time crafting to, say, review sites that give 5 line reviews to a site but generally speaking, I believe there is a difference.
In the end, you do what you want and I think the inhibited and open nature of blogging is what makes it great. I don’t update as much because I feel like not blogging. Some people update at a more frequent level. I like the different fluidity of content that blogs offer. So I definitely wouldn’t say blog entries are not content per say, but perhaps a more narrow focus of what “content” is might throw blog entries out of the picture. Years ago, when blogs only started to emerge that I think in the latter way. But I guess definitions change.
Belinda on January 25 2007 #
And I thought Rhiannon was the only person online that talks from her behind (she’s probably going to kill me for that remark!).
To me, a website with nothing other than a blog can be just as (if not more) entertaining than a personal site with static content. In fact, it takes a talented webmaster/mistress to pull off a blog-only website and still have many visitors. Some of us are so incredibly boring or lack the skills to write interesting blog entries that static content is necessary.
Yes, I am speaking from experience.
… I went slightly off-topic, didn’t I?
Nellie on January 25 2007 #
I smell a hypocrite! Smells like chocolate.
Mike Haddad on January 25 2007 #
I’ve stopped holding myself up to the standards of other people.
Kimmie on January 25 2007 #
I do agree with you - blogs are more interesting as they are frequently updated, but it’s also nice to express yourself through various other ways such as opinions, articles and autobiographies.
Maybe if your life isn’t that exciting, it’s nice to have some other content too. I don’t know! I think I’ll stick to having a personal website because I like having written stuff up and art, i.e. photographs and downloadables, (haha art? Maybe not!)
I do agree with you though! Although having all your content deleted does put a dampener on building a personal site again!
Laura on January 25 2007 #
*claps*
(can’t think of anything interesting to say)
…
^-^
Jenny on January 25 2007 #
Yep, she’s absolutely right. It is so much more fun re-reading the same content over and over again. Not!
It’s nice to have some content about yourself and perhaps a few stuffs for the visitor but a blog is what makes a personal website, in my opinion. It’s the reason I visit most websites out there: Jem, Belinda, Amber, Chans… the list could go on.
Natalie on January 25 2007 #
I do occasionally go back and read articles and stuff on people’s websites if it’s really interesting. Or funny. But then I end up memorizing the articles so there’s no need to read them again. :D
If a blog isn’t content, I don’t know what is.
Kycoo on January 25 2007 #
I have very little attention span for articles. I have to read enough articles and such for school, I want to read something witty and irrelated to my life when I’m online - hence the need to find some excellent blogs! :D
I think a blog could be the highest quality content ever - really, icons and such are everywhere, but a good blog is hard to find.
Manda on January 25 2007 #
She gets a “whatever”. Many people don’t even care about the generic crap anyway.
I say, run your site however you want.
Corinne on January 25 2007 #
If one’s blog entries are interesting and well-written (not like most of mine then), then I think it counts just as much as interesting and well-written static content. The main difference between blog entries and content is that you can blog about anything, but with static content there’s a lot less options.
I’d actually prefer a blog site to a static site with no blog, just because with blogs there’s a lot more variation in subject matter than with static content.
Jessica on January 25 2007 #
Oi Nellie!! She loves me really, guys, I promise. Little scamp. She was a different girl the other night, as you witnessed, Amanda…first she was wanting to take her clo….oh, sorry, I’ll stop. Can you find out from Susie whether or not we’re still getting married?
Apart from when I’m reviewing, I very rarely browse peoples’ content. Why? I’m not sure to be honest. I’ve never even browsed my own…hmmm. Funny that. All up I find blogs more engaging than content because they’re updated more frequently for starters!
PS - There’s a Jingwen button available at PSGR that is yours for the taking, Mandz.
Rhiannon on January 25 2007 #
Well if that’s what he calls interesting content - bearing in mind that if she’d be bored she wouldn’t have put that online, though maybe I’m too optimistic here - then I suppose it’s no wonder that she considers blogs as other than content. I mean who really cares that you woke up, ate, insulted some creep and came home and bitched about your day to others.
Blogs are basically online diaries. There are lots of books (mostly fiction - agreed) which are actually the transcript of a diary and they’re really good and sell well. So an interestingly written blog is very much a content. Personally, I admire the fact that you’re courageous enough to write about body hair removal and choosing bras and the like. I couldn’t do it. I tried, but when it came to hit ‘publish’ I got scared and deleted it. And not because I found it badly written (I’m sure some people would’ve been amused by it), but because these seemed so intimate.
So I DO believe that a blog CAN be counted as content. Nevertheless there are lots of sites where the blog entries are so boring and repetitive and well… just for the sake of typing (not even for the sake of writing), that I’d be hard-pressed to consider blogs. So I guess that in the end the webmisstress might have been right on a certain account.
Vera on January 26 2007 #
There are two reasons I don’t have a blog-only website: 1) I’m too lazy to post frequently enough, and 2) my life is much too boring.
It takes a lot more effort (and personality ;)) to maintain a successful stand-alone blog than site with just static content, in my opinion.
Nikki on January 26 2007 #