Matt Webb quotes Tim Hall:
(Speaking of which, I met Tim Hall the other night and he mooted that weblogs were an inside-out Usenet. That Usenet hangs conversation threads off posts made by people, the threads classified by topic; that weblogs hangs (sic) comments threads off posts of single topics, classified by person.)It's true as far as it goes, but only if you accept that comments threads are a defining feature of a weblog.
Don't get me wrong - since the move to soreeyes.org I've enjoyed reading and responding to everyone's comments, and I look forward to getting plenty more. But here's the thing: I had a weblog for two and a half years before I added comments. Plenty of the weblogs I read every day either don't have a comments feature at all, or else attract relatively few comments per article. The early weblogs didn't have comments features, at least in the beginning. If someone wanted to comment at all on what a weblogger wrote, they did it by making a post on their own weblog, or they emailed the author of the original post, who would sometimes post the email's contents - with permision - to their site and respond on the weblog.
Is it time to coin a new word or phrase to describe the personal site which is updated more-or-less daily with links to other sites? Would it be better to refer to such sites as "linklogs"? Is there a better title? Or should I just accept that I was way behind the times for the last couple of years?
[Yes, I'm aware of the irony of my asking people to post a comment in order to respond to my point that a weblog need not have a comments feature.]
Posted by John at November 24, 2002 09:15 PMcomments provide instant gratification. they might not be as well thought out as emailed replies, but i'm guessing that more people are willing to leave a short comment than firing up email to send off a message.
Posted by: Kristen on November 25, 2002 06:11 AMAs somebody who has no comments on any of his blogs, no I don't think they're an essential part of a weblog, strangely enough.
The essence of a weblog is that it's a (chronologically) ordered list of links and commentary, nothing more. You could subdivide them into linklogs, lifelogs, punditlogs etc.
I agree that online comments are more convenient, and I can well imagine that some readers are more willing to post a comment than to send their email address to some unknown person who might sell it on to spammers or whatever.
My gripe is with the idea that having comments defines a weblog, and the implication that weblogs withough comments (or where most posts pass without any comments) don't fit the category any more.
I started my weblog in the first place largely because I felt that it was a more efficient way to spread amusing/informative/controversial links than using email, and for me that's still the primary reason for maintaining the site.
If anything, what's needed may be a new term to describe weblogs-without-links, be they journal-type sites or the sort of punditry-heavy site where the point of the exercise is for the poster to express their views on the issues of the day rather than to point readers to sites which are considered interesting/etc.
I do rather like "lifelog" and "punditlog", come to think of it. I suspect that the former term might end up being hijacked to describe the sort of accumulation of video, text and so on which Microsoft Research are working on as MyLifeBits.
Martin, have you considered patenting the term "lifelog", so that you can sue Microsoft when MyLifeBits turns into a real consumer product?
:-)
I think it depends on the type of weblog it is. I run a very political weblog and the subjects of my posts are always up for debate. I like having comments as a way for people to counter my ideas and voice their opinions. Of course, you always invite trolls that way, but they are a good source of amusement.
I don't, however, think that it is necessary for a weblog to have comments in order for it to fit into the loose definition of what a weblog is.
Posted by: michele on November 27, 2002 07:47 PMI think the very problem - though the word "problem" is perhaps too strong - is that the definition of the term "weblog" is now so loose that it encompasses all sorts of sub-genres.
Whether this is a negative development (insofar as the increasing popularity of weblogging has caused everyone to forget what the first generation of linklogs was for) or a positive development (because webloggers have finally figured out how to escape the straitjacket of posting nothing but links and express themselves more fully) is another debate entirely. It just bugs me to see the idea presented that a weblog is primarily about the comments.
As you say, it depends a lot on the type of weblog. I'm interested to see how this site changes over the next month or two as I get used to getting comments. Will comments change the way I post, or will I carry on as before but with the added benefit of feedback from my audience?
Posted by: John on November 27, 2002 09:41 PM