« summa cum SAHM* | Main | Worldview Tests: Do You Make the Grade? »

The blogging format: who serves what?

Or, what serves who?

Does the blog serve the blogger, the reader, or both? Or, does the blogger serve the blog (including the format) and the readers? I realize these aren’t new questions, but I’d like to look at them in light of the blog format itself.

I’ll admit, I’ve got a love-hate relationship with blogging. There’s more than one reason for this, but one of reasons has to do with the format. One the one hand, the blog-post format allows for a piece to be written and published in relatively short time. Someone who doesn’t have time to (or chooses not to) research and write long pieces need not be held back from sharing good information or thoughts. On the other hand, blogging, being a type of journaling (weblogging), brings with it the expectation of fairly regular updating. In order to keep a blog updated, a blogger needs to write often. This, in turn, means that the topics written about need to vary a bit, else the blog will have little chance of holding anyone’s interest (including, probably, the blogger’s).

Yet, for those who like to explore topics thoroughly; i.e., those who like to examine, ponder, expand, mull, develop, and perhaps revise a topic over time, blogging may not be the best format. Perhaps blogging isn’t the best set-up for actually journaling these developments. Or is it? Might not a reader think, sheesh, this guy/gal is really obsessed/neurotic/psychotic and has no life...why doesn’t he/she write about something else for a change? Even if the blogger does write about other things, perhaps all that will stand out is the “main topic.” If a blogger has limited time to blog, it may be a burden to have to blog about other things while he/she is preoccupied – I mean occupied – with the “main topic.”

Tod Bolsinger wrote about what he termed “Blogging ADD” at the GodBlogCon blog:

One of the most challenging parts of trying to maintain an updated blog has been keeping a sense of focus on a subject to do it justice. While some bloggers [Mark D. Roberts, for example] do an exceptional job at it, most of us tend to jump from subject to subject based on what catches our attention, or our current interests.

Three questions this raises for me:

1) Is it necessarily bad to jump from subject to subject (i.e., is it bad for a blogger not to narrow down his/her many writing interests), and, do some/most readers actually expect it?

2) Is it possible for a blogger to have the opposite “problem;” i.e., to belabor one particular topic, if even different aspects of the topic are examined in different posts? Might it depend on the actual topic? Might it work better for a blogger to run a “series update” once per week, or once every two weeks, for example? Are regular, predictable updates better than "random" ones?

3) Does the blog/comments format affect the longevity of a comment-section discussion? Do comment threads reflect real-life discussion, or does the on-going-update nature of blogging necessitate that comment discussions only go on so long? (Do commenters lose interest in a comment discussion because the blog/their blog/life moves on, or because they simply tire of it naturally?)

In other words, does the blog format require certain uses, or can it be adapted to the purposes of those who use it? As with any social phenomenon, is it inevitable that the "major" bloggers will set the trends/standards for the way(s) the blog format is used?

Comments

Books are, in my opinion, the best and most thorough way to dispense information. But even books, no matter how well written and researched serve little purpose if nobody (or only a few) people read them. As you said blogs get the job done quickly, though perhaps not profoundly. Christians in particular need, I think, to be able to adapt to and use current and/or burgeoning technologies, and know how to use them intelligently (so don't read my unintelligent blog!) without becoming captive to them. Blogs cannot be all things to all people but they can be something to some. In my own case, my blog is intended for a small constituency: friends and members of my church (though, lately I've been getting comments from people outside this small circle). If someone wants to be well known for his or her writing, then the problems you cite are probably legitimate. If someone doesn't want to be well known, then blogs simply provide a means of mass communication unparalleled in human history. Whether this is a good thing or not can be a matter of debate.

Take care.

Posted by: son of puddleglum at October 9, 2005 7:19 PM

Well, books are OK, but most of us aren't really going to write one, or, if we did, no more people would read it than read our blogs. Besides, blogging encourages feedback more than writing a book does, I suppose (never having done the latter).

The first two problems you suggest also affect an older medium, namely conversation.

Posted by: Martin LaBar at October 10, 2005 3:33 AM

I tend to use my blog to reflect whatever I'm currently thinking about or doing. A sort of online doodle book, although I hope it's a little more coherent than that. There isn't a theme or a plan to it, although perhaps over time themes may emerge. Part of the appeal of blogging is that your blog doesn't have to be anything in particular. It can be specifically themed and targetted to one particular area, or cover many things as your whimsy takes you. I don't think either is necessarily better. Some blogs I read knowing that I'll find something new on their favourite topic. Others I read because I like to discover where they're going to go next. The conversation comparison is a good one. With some friends I always discuss the same topic because it's the one they're most passionate about. With others, the conversation jumps from subject to subject with each new enthusiasm.

Posted by: Pigwotflies at October 10, 2005 6:47 AM

Good comments, all of them. I'm just hoping to figure it out as I go along. No profound advice from me today.

I tend to harp on certain themes here, but on my personal blog, I'm as random as can be. Probably, there is no "right" answer.

Posted by: Hannah at October 11, 2005 7:20 AM

I'm with you, Bonnie, a blog doesn't have to be focused or be purposeful, it can just be. There's no pressure to have lots of readers, to make money, to be focused, to be coherent. You can just write, because this is a free country, and that's to be celebrated! Blog because it's there, blog because you can!

Posted by: djchuang at October 17, 2005 9:44 AM

"As with any social phenomenon, is it inevitable that the "major" bloggers will set the trends/standards for the way(s) the blog format is used?"

Maybe it's inevitable that people who want to be "major" bloggers will imitate those who seem to be "major" bloggers, but there are no blog police to force anyone to do anything. I've been thinking about this recently. Several of the bloggers who have the greatest impact on my life are quite unknown. How can impact be measured? Not by number of unique visitors or number of comments. There are posts which I read, enjoy, and do not comment on, because they leave me content to ponder, not driven to discuss. I think that's okay and it isn't a "failure" on the part of the blogger.

Posted by: Hannah at October 18, 2005 12:03 AM

Thanks for all the comments, guys. Good thoughts. I think I've got my answer, based on your responses and things that were said at the GodBlogCon. DJChuang, I think you pretty much sum it up! (BTW, sorry I didn't get a chance to say hello at the Con; I'll say it now: "hello!") Blog on!

Posted by: Bonnie at October 18, 2005 5:57 PM

If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.