Comments on: Why I hate Personal Weblogs

Why I hate Personal Weblogs

jonah — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:30:43 -0800

Why I hate Personal Weblogs While the Introduction to this psuedo-research paper is a bit rough and profane, I couldn't help but agree with much of the content, although I generally don't hate personal weblogs. I particularly enjoyed Chapter 2 - Why Do They Do It, as well as the the final snippet which asserts: I, in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff of weblog authors, propose that all weblog authors create a Statement of Audience once per month (or, every two weeks if possible) to facilitate understanding of their place in the universe and the importance of their writings.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:33:08 -0800

Perhaps the author should consider unplugging his network cable? I hate whiners. :-)

By: jonah

jonah — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:39:05 -0800

You could read the whole thing, he does have a section on Acceptable Uses of Weblogs. I didn't find it to be whiney, a bit rough, but not whiney.

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:39:30 -0800

Bitching about weblogs sucks ass. What the fuck is up with this shit? Fuck. Who the fuck cares what the fuck you think about people who write about oatmeal or what the UN did last week? Nobody!

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:41:05 -0800

Can someone explain to me what makes this different than a weblog entry?

By: jonah

jonah — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:41:55 -0800

It's not listed in reverse chronological order?

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:48:39 -0800

The least he could do is come up with an original criticism of blogs. The "self-important uninformed ego-driven jackass" thing has been around for almost as long as blogs have. I'll never understand such an obsession with something as harmless as blogs that have only as much impact on your life as you let them. Or maybe he was just trying to be funny. Beats me.

By: jess

jess — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:52:44 -0800

See, I like weblogs because the proprietors are generally ".. expert in nothing [and] confused about almost everything." The whole point is that anyone with access to the Internet can have a weblog about whatever they want, and a potential audience of millions. Why should we give this medium back to experts, celebrities, and people of notoriety? That's what every other modern form of mass-media and publishing is for.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:52:53 -0800

Chapter 5 is great. I've been sick of the word "blog" since the first time I heard it.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:08:50 -0800

He sounds just like the DeathToBloggers guy.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:11:21 -0800

I think that a lot of weblogs do suffer from an over-inflated sense of importance. I found that I had a lot more fun with mine once I started writing just for myself and the few family members who check it on a regular basis.

By: tranquileye

tranquileye — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:15:42 -0800

This would have been better if he had actually given examples of the various sorts of blogs he doesn't like. Well, more entertaining, anyway.

By: jon_kill

jon_kill — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:19:58 -0800

Jonah: Yes, it is.

By: Daze

Daze — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:20:41 -0800

I, in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff of whiny pottymouth college students, propose that all whiny pottymouth college students devote lots of time and energy justifying themselves to me. Talk about your self-important blowhards.

By: tomorama

tomorama — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:22:43 -0800

What is a weblog? Well, a weblog (or 'blog' in the slang of the afflicted) is like a public journal. An autobiography of sorts, a weblog is an intimate look at the thoughts of an individual person, written from the perspective of that person, updated regularly, created as a publicly browsable web page. Wrong. While the term has evolved over the past five years, the defining characteristic of a weblog is still links - a log of things the author has found on the web. The journal aspect only comes into play when the author includes commentary along with the links. As far as I see, an online journal is called an "Online Journal" whether or not its entries are in reverse chronological order.

By: mischief

mischief — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:25:20 -0800

I comma prepositional phrase comma verb blah blah blah??? No, I don't think so.

By: adamgreenfield

adamgreenfield — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:01:27 -0800

No, really, this guy needs help, and quickly. What was that charming phrase, "cinderblock head massage"? Or "sodomized with a red-hot poker"? The sheer amount of anger, hatred, and violence that's here directed at something as relatively trivial and harmless as blog(ger)s is truly scary. It's specious to diagnose stuff at long range and on the basis of a single writing sample, but this guy feels deeply fucked up to me. My gut tells me that this individual has it within him to turn at least some of the force behind those phrases into physical reality, and that scares the crap out of me.

By: delapohl

delapohl — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:03:01 -0800

The Obsessive-Delusional Ranter. These people can't turn it off. They fixate on everything and NEED to talk about it. These are the people you have to find an excuse to walk away from occasionally because they just fucking won't shut the hell up. Um...

By: ScottUltra

ScottUltra — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:24:21 -0800

I wonder if he realizes that he doesn't have to read them?

By: KevinSkomsvold

KevinSkomsvold — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:30:08 -0800

Just when I thought weblogs were on the cusp of greatness, this fucker comes along and has to wreck it. I smite thee. For more on this topic, visit my site at.....

By: Skot

Skot — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:36:04 -0800

This thread has served this guy's whole purpose: to get attention for being oh so naughty. Which is fine. I just wish his writing wasn't so monotonously shrill.

By: Karmakaze

Karmakaze — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:02:40 -0800

I have the same reaction every time I read one of these rants. They're not there for you to like. They're there for the author to like. I really don't get the "People have a hobby I see no use for. THEY ARE EVIL AND MUST BE STOPPED." I personally have no use for football as a spectator sport, but I don't go around saying the Suberbowl needs to be banned or that other people are stupid for watching it. Don't like 'em? Don't read 'em. A great many online journals, the ones on livejournal in particular, are a lot more about female-mode socializing than they are about male-mode information trading. If you go in with "passing along information" as a goal, they're pointless. If you go in with the goal of social interaction... then there's a point. I notice it's always males who have these rants... coincidence?

By: quarsan

quarsan — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:10:26 -0800

it's a bit like saying i hate webpages. it doesn't mean much at all, and the author doesn't explain why he cares so much. i've had a blog for a while and it's just something i do. no more, no less. my girlfriends blog is something that she enjoys, connects her to people all over the world and doesn't do anyone harm. what's wrong with blogs? all these anti-blog rants do is just repeat 'I don't like blogs". is that all they have to say? well, now we know the author doesn't like blogs. yawn.

By: adamrice

adamrice — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:12:49 -0800

At least he has a sense of his own place in the world: "I offer the following Statement of Audience as a template, and apply it willingly to this entire essay" The part that made me laugh was the "Acceptable Uses of Weblogs", which includes "A model might keep a weblog of their daily routine or places they travel." Me writing about what I had for breakfast=fucking stupid. Tyra Banks writing about what she had for breakfast=news. This makes me wonder whether Tyra Banks writing about what I had for breakfast, or me writing about what she had for breakfast, would be acceptable.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:42:49 -0800

the defining characteristic of a weblog is still links - a log of things the author has found on the web. I believe the same thing, but I've yet to see any article, essay or even extended blog entry that's managed to deal with the weblog phenomena in its totality. Every author who tries immediately reveals their bias. It's all "weblogs are personal journals" or "weblogs were invented by conservatives after 9-11" or "weblogs are the domain of inner-city hipster kids", or "weblogs are replacing traditional journalism". Does (did?) Robot Wisdom fit into any of those neat little boxes? As long as the authors continue to completely bollocks up their supposedly in-depth treatment of the issue, I'll continue to spit on their boots.

By: eener

eener — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:57:23 -0800

Could also be entitled: "Why my self important ramblings are more important than yours"

By: Dreama

Dreama — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:08:51 -0800

This rant is neither original nor terribly on point. It's all been said before, and said better. From 1997, updated in 2000, Why Web Journals Suck by Diane Patterson.

By: jonah

jonah — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:59:13 -0800

There's something delightfully circular about people posting comments in this thread essentially saying that the article linked isn't worth reading. Weblogs are crap! No, your writing is crap! We're all on the internet, yay!

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:05:01 -0800

I recognize that it's a bit wordy for a tagline, but ... Metafilter : These people can't turn it off. They fixate on everything and NEED to talk about it. These are the people you have to find an excuse to walk away from occasionally because they just fucking won't shut the hell up.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:19:50 -0800

And the point of his overly self important you're-all-idiots-in-need-of-my-supreme-leadership-and-guidance blog entry? The guy's a knob just looking for a reaction, like the people who troll comment threads to throw in a barb against company X (and we all Company X is the evil empire or the bastard mini-me of the evil empire, right? good, let's move on then). At least he has the balls to put his email address on the sorry crap he wrote (which archetype is he? I'm guessing the moron ego-stroker crossed with the self important moron). Me? I'm the combo plate blogger but mostly I do it for fun. Is that allowed, oh self important master of all that is and ever was?

By: swerve

swerve — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:25:50 -0800

The Weblog Author Personality Quiz is funny. He gets points for funny.

By: anildash

anildash — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:21:27 -0800

I hate email because people don't write about the things I like to read! Also, Rebecca Blood's weblog essay is a good one. The rest do tend to suck.

By: keswick

keswick — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:31:02 -0800

Clearly, only licensed professionals should be allowed to an express an opinion.

By: jonah

jonah — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 16:38:09 -0800

That personality quiz is a thing of beauty, I'm too lazy to complete it though.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:17:20 -0800

Maybe if you could explain why you hate America and Freedom you would better understand why you hate Personal Weblogs.

By: weston

weston — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:57:53 -0800

I stopped updating my thing-I-do-not-call-a-blog about two months ago, due to time constraints and a few other things, but I'm thinking of starting again just to tick this guy off. Maybe I'll even email him about it.

By: krisjohn

krisjohn — Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:24:55 -0800

I use my weblog/journal (currently on my.opera.com) to list all the stuff I buy, watch, play, borrow, etc -- just in case anyone likes some of the same stuff I like and wants some suggestions. Also, I use it to keep track of everything I've ordered so I know if something is Missing In Transit or not.

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:49:31 -0800

Unlike 99.99% of blogs, I enjoyed reading that.

By: quarsan

quarsan — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:07:21 -0800

true, most are unreadable, or at least as unreadable as this author. reading his introduction, i wonder at his illiteracy, is someone who writes like that really studying at university? but one thing i have noticed is that weblogs are not just individual undertakings. bloggers are reading other blogs and forming small communities that keep in contact and make friends. this often results in RL friendships forming. what is most interesting is the sheer diversity of blogs and bloggers. indeed, it is this diversity that invalidates such rants.

By: skallas

skallas — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:53:22 -0800

>I wonder if he realizes that he doesn't have to read them? That's what they said to the people burning books. For some reason its not very persuasive.

By: amery

amery — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:03:34 -0800

A great majority of blogs suck. A great majority of novels/songs/poems/essays/movies/whatevers suck. So what? The good justifies the medium.

By: CBoots

CBoots — Thu, 08 Jan 2004 21:13:57 -0800

>It's all been said before, and said better. From 1997, >updated in 2000, Why Web Journals Suck by Diane Patterson. I've read that Patterson essay and this latest thing, though a little rougher, has the good sense to not take itself as seriously.