Comments on: Comments on 5298

Post number 5298

Hackworth — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:45:10 -0800

Ouch So, a new Fantastical is out via wetlog. Am I the only one a little put off the by scathing article about weblogs? (more inside)

By: Hackworth

Hackworth — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:46:42 -0800

Granted, it has it's points, but is such negativity warranted? What are weblogs good for other than reading about people? Isn't that the point?

By: Sapphireblue

Sapphireblue — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:50:19 -0800

weblogs are good for starting navel-gazing threads on MetaFilter on a slow news day. almost ... too good.

By: tiaka

tiaka — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:00:10 -0800

I'm not at all sure what the 'article' is trying to say. First it tells us that weblogging is worse than geocities but the author keeps 'several'. Basically today's bloggers can't write and will eventually give up, but, they shouldn't have tried in the first place, but I guess the media's to blame for this. Reminds me of an ignorant linux zealot, which in, you can't use the pc, and you shouldn't try. heh. Btw, I love the last/next tread bar on the bottom. A bit startling being it the first thing in the morning though. heh.

By: ericost

ericost — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:03:21 -0800

To save everyone some trouble I have compiled some of the better comments from previous MeFI discussions of this topic: 'Firstly, this man is doing us all a great favor by writing this wonderfully articulate piece. If only he wasn't jumping on the bandwagon a little late. I thought the long, drawn out "Blogger sucks, all they do is link to eachother" pieces were done. Apparently not.' originally found at... 'If people keep reacting to this sort of stuff, it will be open season on Bloggers twelve months of the year. If one is going to take the time to respond to criticism in a meaningful manner, then surely it should be in response to a piece that has at least some passing merit.' originally found at... 'Despite the fact that most weblogs are useless and boring to me, I think it's great that they exist, whether they're entertaining hundreds of people, one person or even just themselves. And I can't honestly say that a whole bunch of boring text is cluttering up the net more than, say, the billions of megs of hardcore pornography being tossed around every day.' originally found at... 'When I rule the Web, nobody will ever be able to complain about how "X" ruined the web by allowing any idiot to publish on it until they are willing to show us their very first homepage.' originally found at... 'I am so f***ing sick of all of these losers trying to tell me what's good and what's bad about weblogs (or the internet in general). This is just like when old people shake their fist at you and telling you how things were so much better when they were your age. Please shut the hell up and quit wasting my time! The greatest triumph of the web is that it give all of us a way to express ourselves any damn way we feel like it. I've got a simple rule for all of these elitist twits: "If you don't like it, don't read it!" That's what bookmark files are for.' originally found at... 'I have a philosophy about the web, if you don't like it, then maybe you shouldn't be reading it... even more so, if you want to tell the world you don't like it, than maybe you should be contributing to the world something that is better. Hai Capito?' originally found at...

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:08:29 -0800

I've never understood this type of editorial. They all say the same thing. And they all generate the same counter arguments. Here, I'll summarize the history of "weblogs suck" threads. "Weblogs are amateurish" - So? It's the web. What were you expecting? "Weblogs are all the same" So? With 100 million people online I think we can look forward to much redundancy. Fact of life. "Weblogs are boring" - So? If thet're so bad, why are you reading them? "Weblogs are linky-love" - And this is bad why? "Weblogs suck bandwidth" - HA! As if! "Weblogs encourage bad writing" - Thank you William Strunk, Jr. ppssssssth!

By: aladfar

aladfar — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:39:45 -0800

I suppose the article makes some contentious points, but I can't get past the cool naked guy on the cover . . .

By: rich

rich — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:11:37 -0800

I liked the weblog piece. I think it echoed what has been said before, true, but it also related back to points some of the interviewees made. If there wasn't any smoke, there wouldn't be the fire. (God, that's such a horrible cliche statement, isn't it?)

By: jmcnally

jmcnally — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:50:11 -0800

So I guess now the Blog Backlash™ is in full swing. Too bad...

By: cCranium

cCranium — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:30:10 -0800

If this is the Blog Backlash^TM it's been in full-swing since Slashdot started using Slash code to generate their posts. There's just more blogs now, so there are more bloggers (and former bloggers, and never bloggers) who are making more noise about it. If signal = blogs, and if noise = blog detractors, the Internet's favorite ratio is the same as it was 2 years ago.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:38:15 -0800

I just don't understand talking smack about a medium that you use yourself. If I played piano (which I do) and said that playing piano was all of the things that Neale said about blogging, I'd be something of a hypocrite, wouldn't I?

By: Hackworth

Hackworth — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:02:06 -0800

ericost: I didn't realize there was that much discussion on the topic already...I guess I should have done my homework. =/

By: gsh

gsh — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:28:20 -0800

No, Dreama, I don't think so. I'd say you were someone who, despite having affection for the piano, saw that it was not beyond reproach, and that your affection for it allowed you to want to see it get better, grow and change - rather than bow down in slavish adoration to some wood and ivory.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:47:42 -0800

Hmm, g, I didn't see much by way of wishing for betterment, growth and change in that article. Lemme re-read. Nope, still don't.

By: CrazyUncleJoe

CrazyUncleJoe — Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:42:44 -0800

Thank GOD people are finally taking this guy seriously! For iYears¹ he's been getting away with blatant negativity in the name of "sarcasm" and "comedy" - well PLAYTIME'S OVER BOY! Frankly, I'm not nearly as offended by his weblog comments as I am by the fact that he called me a "redneck, confident, optimistic, stupid, randy, adventurous, stupid, sexy person" who is "no sex god" in his "Are You a Love God" liftout section. I mean, he called me stupid TWICE! How lame is that? Besides, I got my ass kicked way too many times by the ²in High School to be called a redneck. Not only that, but where does that "lance" guy get off calling my weblog a dirtclod palace? Geez! Heap a few dirt clods around the edges of your site and suddenly you're labelled! ¹ Weeks. Sometimes months. ² The Cowboy Clique - their name, not mine.