Darn right re comments. Most of the early blogs had no comments e.g. for the longest time, Blogger blogs had no comments (which is why services like Haloscan exist today). I forget if EditThisPage had them. That didn’t take away the charm from the first blogs.
Whenever I hear someone talk about voice in a blog, I remember the first time the (then few) Bay Area food bloggers got together (for a dinner, naturally). I think it was my wife who made the observation that “the bloggers all looked like their blogs.” You could almost name the bloggers without being introduced–tone and opinions (and areas of expertise) identified each. And it’s certainly the case that my professional food writing does not always sound like me in the way OWF does–though in part that’s because I’m writing for a different audience and within a different editorial tone.
I think to a large extent the market (i.e. blog readers) will continue to be the driving deciders when it comes to what constitutes a blog. Comments certainly don’t make or break a blog.
TV on in the background. Last couple of minutes of the Rose Bowl. I thought I heard the announcers say something about “the bloggers will be out” if Michigan loses. Did I hear that correctly?
I have no doubt there are a shit-load of fan blogs for every college and pro team, so I’m not sure why I would be surprised the subject would be mentioned in the broadcast. Can any of you sports fans enlighten me on this? Have bloggers become enough of a factor they get mentioned in such high-profile broadcasts?
A random fact I learned recently after working through the HBO series Rome — the term caesar applied to all rulers of Rome. It was a title, not a name.
Well, not exactly 🙂
The term was originally a name. The Roman Republic was overthrown by an ambitious general, Gaius Julius Caesar. Roman names had three parts — the praenomen, or individual’s name; the nomen, or family name; and the cognomen, used to distinguish branches within a family tree. The first emperor’s name, therefore, could be interpreted as “Gaius, of the Caesarian branch of the Julii family”. Gaius Julius Caesar is the person who is generally referred to today as “Caesar”.
It was common in Roman politics for leaders to adopt their proteges into their family; this was seen as cementing the bond between the two men. When Caesar was assassinated, his will specified that his primary heir was to be his great-nephew, Gaius Octavius (commonly referred to today as “Octavian”), who was the son of his sister’s daughter. The will also adopted Octavian into the Julii family.
After Gaius Octavius won the civil war to determine who would succeed Caesar, he took the name Caesar Augustus, to emphasize both his (tenuous) family connection to the original emperor, and his position as the undisputed “first citizen” of Rome.
The next few emperors were all descendants of Caesar Augustus, so they carried the family name “Caesar” by right. By the time someone from outside the Augustan family line reached the imperial throne, Caesars had been running Rome for decades, so it was natural for non-Julian emperors to take up the name to try to connect themselves to the “founding dynasty”. And so did “Caesar” pass from a family name into the official title of the Roman Emperor.
My wife and I just saw “Children of Men” the other night and were really moved — even though it is sort of sci-fi, I think, for us, it brought weight to to the whole iraq thing (and the ‘safe distance’ we experience as Americans) than anything else we’ve seen in quite some time.
Your post about the movie prompted me to pass it along — given the themes you write about you might find it interesting.
…I don’t argue. I don’t even like confrontation. I avoid having to defend my thoughts and opinions to even my closest friends and colleagues for fear of not being able to justify them.
Are my ideas wacky? No. Are they controversial? Sometimes. But put me in front of someone and ask me to justify my position face to face and I melt like the horrible dirty spring snow.
Blogging though gives me feel a sense of freedom.
I can put my opinion out there, however misguided and wrong it may be. If someone comments – great. If someone disagrees, great. it doesn’t me no harm and if anything encourages me to respond.
I don’t blog for comments but people’s response to my opinions are, for me, a fundamental part of the conversation that blogging brings to my life (god it makes me sound like a no-friends loner!!).
How many times have people complained that email and the internet is one-way traffic? I think we should embrace comments as core to the blogging experience.
Scripting News Annex 
Posted by Hieronymous Coward on January 1, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Darn right re comments. Most of the early blogs had no comments e.g. for the longest time, Blogger blogs had no comments (which is why services like Haloscan exist today). I forget if EditThisPage had them. That didn’t take away the charm from the first blogs.
Posted by Derrick Schneider on January 1, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Whenever I hear someone talk about voice in a blog, I remember the first time the (then few) Bay Area food bloggers got together (for a dinner, naturally). I think it was my wife who made the observation that “the bloggers all looked like their blogs.” You could almost name the bloggers without being introduced–tone and opinions (and areas of expertise) identified each. And it’s certainly the case that my professional food writing does not always sound like me in the way OWF does–though in part that’s because I’m writing for a different audience and within a different editorial tone.
Posted by J Brauer on January 1, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I think to a large extent the market (i.e. blog readers) will continue to be the driving deciders when it comes to what constitutes a blog. Comments certainly don’t make or break a blog.
Posted by Steve Mays on January 1, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Rose Bowl announcer talking about bloggers?
TV on in the background. Last couple of minutes of the Rose Bowl. I thought I heard the announcers say something about “the bloggers will be out” if Michigan loses. Did I hear that correctly?
I have no doubt there are a shit-load of fan blogs for every college and pro team, so I’m not sure why I would be surprised the subject would be mentioned in the broadcast. Can any of you sports fans enlighten me on this? Have bloggers become enough of a factor they get mentioned in such high-profile broadcasts?
Posted by _ryan on January 1, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Yes, Obama does smoke
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-obamasmokes_05edi.ART.State.Edition1.3e8ee63.html
Posted by Jason Lefkowitz on January 1, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Well, not exactly 🙂
The term was originally a name. The Roman Republic was overthrown by an ambitious general, Gaius Julius Caesar. Roman names had three parts — the praenomen, or individual’s name; the nomen, or family name; and the cognomen, used to distinguish branches within a family tree. The first emperor’s name, therefore, could be interpreted as “Gaius, of the Caesarian branch of the Julii family”. Gaius Julius Caesar is the person who is generally referred to today as “Caesar”.
It was common in Roman politics for leaders to adopt their proteges into their family; this was seen as cementing the bond between the two men. When Caesar was assassinated, his will specified that his primary heir was to be his great-nephew, Gaius Octavius (commonly referred to today as “Octavian”), who was the son of his sister’s daughter. The will also adopted Octavian into the Julii family.
After Gaius Octavius won the civil war to determine who would succeed Caesar, he took the name Caesar Augustus, to emphasize both his (tenuous) family connection to the original emperor, and his position as the undisputed “first citizen” of Rome.
The next few emperors were all descendants of Caesar Augustus, so they carried the family name “Caesar” by right. By the time someone from outside the Augustan family line reached the imperial throne, Caesars had been running Rome for decades, so it was natural for non-Julian emperors to take up the name to try to connect themselves to the “founding dynasty”. And so did “Caesar” pass from a family name into the official title of the Roman Emperor.
Posted by Scott on January 1, 2007 at 7:52 pm
If you like Rome you should check out the History Channel’s ‘Engineering an Empire.’ It is a great show.
Posted by Rahul Dave on January 2, 2007 at 6:59 am
Did anyone notice the caption on Wolf Blitzers situation room blip for a segment on Bin-Laden later in his show?
It said, “where’s Obama”, against a picture of Bin-Laden. And no apology came through the show, though the next blip said, where’s Bin-Laden.
MSM editorial accuracy? Bah Humbug.
Posted by Bryan Zug on January 2, 2007 at 10:23 am
My wife and I just saw “Children of Men” the other night and were really moved — even though it is sort of sci-fi, I think, for us, it brought weight to to the whole iraq thing (and the ‘safe distance’ we experience as Americans) than anything else we’ve seen in quite some time.
Your post about the movie prompted me to pass it along — given the themes you write about you might find it interesting.
Posted by Paul Fabretti on January 3, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Dave, regarding your blogging/comments views…
…I don’t argue. I don’t even like confrontation. I avoid having to defend my thoughts and opinions to even my closest friends and colleagues for fear of not being able to justify them.
Are my ideas wacky? No. Are they controversial? Sometimes. But put me in front of someone and ask me to justify my position face to face and I melt like the horrible dirty spring snow.
Blogging though gives me feel a sense of freedom.
I can put my opinion out there, however misguided and wrong it may be. If someone comments – great. If someone disagrees, great. it doesn’t me no harm and if anything encourages me to respond.
I don’t blog for comments but people’s response to my opinions are, for me, a fundamental part of the conversation that blogging brings to my life (god it makes me sound like a no-friends loner!!).
How many times have people complained that email and the internet is one-way traffic? I think we should embrace comments as core to the blogging experience.
Posted by Adi on July 28, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Is it better when a blog’s comments are links to other blogs? sure.
But that’s not always the case, so comments are still useful:
http://dotmad.blogspot.com/2007/07/joel-spolsky-thinks-blog-comments-are.html