Talk:Blog/Archive 2

message: Someone should post about how Blogs game google's pagerank system to the point where you can't hardly search for anything nowadays without having to sift through 10 pages of blog links. The "link whoring" nature of blogs undermine systems like Google and turn them from a useful tool for finding relevant information and into a "internet moron's opinion engine". "Linkback" makes the problem even worse, since it automagically googlespams TWO blogs at the same time in an automated manner. Kind of like a poor man's "search engine optimization". Naturally, I couldn't contribute this content myself without being NPOV. :)
:Actually, dear anonymous contributor, I find the opposite to be the case. Often when I'm searching for something and can't remember the exact terms used on the page, I'll find that some Weblog author has saved me, by posting about it using the same synonyms that I used. If there weren't so many Weblogs, that wouldn't work. -- Mpt 01:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. I don't understand this whole arguement that blogs are cluttering google's index. You want a topic to be linked to and desribed from many different angles and perspectives in order to make it easier to find. People typically link to 'official' web pages when they're blogging on a topic, so these pages get a big ranking boost as a result of blogs. It's true that blog software tends to be well designed, to allow blogs to be easily (and heavily) interlinked, but the result is that bloggers build a kind of network of trust and kudos. Bloggers who write useless/boring blogs have less google power, while respected people gain more incoming links, and therefore more google rank. Often a well written blog will provide useful answers to questions you might be searching on, or links to good websites for further information. Call it 'gaming the pagerank system' if you like, but this is exactly the kind of information which google relies upon to decide which websites are 'best'. The real pagerank villains are spamdexers, who it should be noted, are often the same scum who spam wikis (see http://www.chongqed.org) -- Nojer2 23:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the interlinked part, it should be noted in the article as something that distinguishes it easily from just an online diary - I mean, its not just a soapbox/diary/etc. posted in digital form, the fact that links can form and thus cohesion is quite significant. Many student movements/demonstrations have been successfully carried out (or at least gained attention, demonstrations against software patents, anyone?) due to this sort of cohesion, that's slightly built in stone. -- Natalinasmpf 04:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs Have Ruined Google 

message: Under "Creating and publishing weblogs", there are 12 services and 6 server software examples given. Should there be some criteria for inclusion in the main article on weblogs? Could we have a category of weblog management software? (most of which are in :Category:Open source content management systems anyway) Or maybe "list of weblog services and software"? --Christopherlin 02:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of weblog services 

message: A description (or new page?) of Link blog would be cool! - Sridhar 05:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Blog 

message: Let's copyedit the following:
:Slashdot is one particularly influential technology blog which often breaks stories on exploits of computer security vulnerabilities.
to read:
:Slashdot, a technology news site considered by some to be a blog, is particularly influential in how it often breaks stories on exploits of computer security vulnerabilities.
How's that? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 18:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible compromise

message: I put up the link to Committee to Protect Bloggers here before I had created that page.  I apologize.  I have created that page now and hope that the link will remain in this post.   The Committee is not a project I am involved with, but I believe it to be very important.  Go check it out, or the article here on it before you revert...please.
:This article refers to an entity that is too new to have relevance for an encyclopedia.  Don't be surprised if somebody submits it for delete consideration shortly. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 05:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said in my user talk, I would support an external link, but the article should be deleted.  It's an entity only days old. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 06:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Feel free to add text to the article regarding the repression of bloggers, and please cite your sources either in talk or in the article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 08:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Committee to Protect Bloggers

message: The hosting sites listed in the "Creating and publishing weblogs" section need to be notable in an encyclopedia sense to be eligible for listing.  However, I'm concerned that some of those listed are not indeed notable.  I would normally just remove the sites that don't currently have articles, but I would like to ask first if anyone believes any of the external links in the list point to somewhat notable hosting sites.  Please cite sources or Google statistics to back up your selections.  At some point soon, I would like to trim this list down. Thanks. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 01:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog hosting sites list probably getting out of hand

message: -
Like any other website, any Internet user can read a blog.
:Umm no, there are blogs behind firewalls and security that are not accessible, just like any other web site.
-
What distinguishes a blog from other kinds of website is how quickly and easily the author posts new entries. The blogging software automatically converts the entry to HTML, adds a time stamp, posts it online, and archives old posts.
: Umm no, there is software for rapid updating which is not a blog. Not all blogging software automatically converts writing to HTML, and it isn't a distinguishing feature of blogs versus any other web page program such as Dreamweaver. Stirling Newberry 03:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted intro edits 

message: I think the topic of blogs in politics is always going to be controversial, and should get a separate page to keep the debate separate.  That page can be briefly summarized on the main page, with the link.
There were lots of blogs at all points on the political spectrum, from the earliest days.  The ability of blogs to draw attention to stories the mainstream media was underplaying, was exactly proportional to the readership of the blog, or to the number of those readers who amplified the story via links in their own blogs.
There are plenty of stories that bloggers got to before the majors, just like there were many that Drudge got to before the majors.  Blogs were very good at detecting inconsistencies between different sources, and places where a major media outlet had omitted key facts from a story.
But I think for the first few years the sense of polarization was much milder-- during the Clinton years there were Clinton-bashers, but I don't think many blogs were primarily devoted to Clinton-bashing.  (I'm no expert on this, because I ignored that development.)  The Monica Lewinski scandal evolved in parallel with early blogs. (Jorn Barger, 6 March 2005)
:I think this is an excellent idea, and I've gone ahead and created :Category:Political weblogs, a subcategory of :Category:Weblogs. I don't have a huge amount of time to help with the political weblog article, so that may be a red link for a little while - unless you jump in and start it, of course. Be bold! Once political weblog is written, we can summarize it in the political weblog section here, and link to it using the  template. Rhobite 19:49, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Not a bad idea.  There's definitely mounds of content available for such an article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 02:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page: Political blogs? 

message: >>Blogs also arose amongst soldiers serving in the Iraq war. Such milblogs have become the modern >>version of a war correspondent.
Is this true/NPOV? ~Dpr
:No, it's not really true or neutral. I changed it, thanks for pointing it out. Rhobite 08:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
::Well done.  --AStanhope 15:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New war correspondent 

message: I added a few sentences to this section on NPOV grounds. The section was strongly anti-corporate, so I balanced the discussion with an example from Powerline and the lack of evidence that corporate blogs were diminishing the growth of the blogoshere. --Casey Abell 01:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate blogs 

message: Just noticed that "Astanhope" reverted out my example of an employer defending a blogger when he was attacked. Any reason for the revert, beyond simple dislike of the Powerline blog? The only justification given is "inanity." The examples of employers punishing bloggers have remained.
It's silly to get into a dispute about such a quibble. But if examples of employers punishing bloggers are allowed in the article, why can't an example of an employer defending a blogger be included? Seems like a straightforward NPOV balancing.
At any rate, I think a better justification for the revert than "inanity" should be provided.
I have decided to put back the example of an employer defending a blogger. The example is sourced so readers can judge of its "inanity." If the example is reverted out again, I'll take the matter to Wikipedia mediation. --Casey Abell 15:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert Inanity? 

message: Here is a list of articles that I propose be rolled into the main weblog article:
* blogroll
* blogsite
* blog feed
These are linked from the "Common terms" section, and are all short are only linked to by the main weblog article and each other. Maybe fork the list of jargon into a new article like List of weblog terms? --Christopherlin 06:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms with separate stub articles