Go to The Town Square
- Add a comment
- Go to PROPOSITION: EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL PLAY
qualified bloggery
Not so sure charging people for all their blobs - I mean blogs would be too customer friendly, but maybe there could be X amount of blogs per month as limitation for those paying for monthly access. Paying for the year upfront would enable infinite blogging rights. Or, we could post naked pictures of the bloggers and select several each month who will receive unlimited blogging privileges. Ok, so we blur the faces.
posted by
manymoonz
on May 22, 2003 at 9:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Majroj
It's a stupid idea quite frankly. Maybe people have too much they want to write about to fit in one blog.
Just because you have condensed your posts into one, doesn't mean it was a good idea and doesn't mean everyone else should.
posted by
chris2303
on May 21, 2003 at 10:55 AM
| link to this | reply
I feel like I'm advocating "Socialized Blogging"! (And I'm breaking my own resolution, I KNOW !):
But if our favorite bloggers blanket the categories then it is really hard for new folks to break in, they will be discouraged. Kinda like a room full of Rupert Murdoch clones. The natural trend in a laissez faire system is towards monopoly. It's hard to get a good idea of what the life cycle of a blogger in this setting is and thus project the "natural" turnover. Rhere are natural controls also, theoretically, such as spreading yourself too thin, or the inability to think up (or the refusal to use) sensational titles or language. This is like an ant farm version of the publishing world in some ways ("SimPublish"?
)
The question of "how much service are you paying for?" is a good one, and defined by whether you are speaking as a reader (as much as you can get, within technical lmits and if you aren't hacking in for free), or as a blogger (a rough median derived by the total capacity of the services available technically, divided by the number of paying bloggers, after a reasonable profit, operating overhead and infrastructure investment funds are deducted). I have little time to blog, another blogger is a student or retired and blogs constantly, who's getting a better share of "his" money's worth and stands a better chance to feel rewarded by attention and etc.?
It's an art, or we'd all be out there making millions creating a site like this; the divide between reader and blogger is in each of us (I'm a 90/10 split) and the factor of "taste" in subject and language are essential as well (the prevalent trends in taste dictates how bored or repelled some people will be and whether they will continue to read or blog). I suspect the ringmasters buy Maalox by the gallon and just drop in a long straw trying to ride herd on this shindig and keep it from bellying up. My hat's off to 'em, and to everyone rowing to keep the whole thing skimming along!!!
Molly, you're right about the font, I just "had" to raise my voice again. Maybe a color change next time.....
posted by
majroj
on May 21, 2003 at 12:56 AM
| link to this | reply
Fewer blogs per person
I don't think you get more for your money when you make lots of blogs. I think you build a larger readership if you just have one or two blogs. People get to know the name of your blog and connect it to you. I won't just click on a new blog... I want to know who wrote it first.
posted by
geri
on May 20, 2003 at 9:47 PM
| link to this | reply
MAJ
I say use smaller fonts!! Also, it isn't just the number of blogs but how often you write in them that affect things like bandwidth and processors. Is one-post blogs the issue you are trying to solve? If so, a better idea might be to have one post blogs removed or archives after a year, though even that doesn't seem necessary right now.
Personally I like having a variety of blogs and until things get crowded around here and space becomes an issue, why should we advocate getting less for our money?
posted by
MollyB
on May 20, 2003 at 10:10 AM
| link to this | reply