Do Blogs Need To Be Social ?
Continuing yesterday's consideration of blogs and social networking, perhaps Wallace's views reflect the position taken by Om Malik, when he wrote last August at Giga-Om, Why Blogs Need To Be Social. His post extends my mini-history on the evolution of blogs and sees a logical development of them into the social networks/nightmares that some advocate.
This is what makes life interesting and the never-ending source of writing material! How boring our existence would be if everyone agreed and all birds sang the same song.
In the world of Wallace and Malik, blogs are only one stage of communications development. I can see that, and I can agree with it. I even rejoice at each new invention in the ways of the Web. For example, I think being able for writers and others interested in books to display their current or favorite reads via Shelfari, Googlereads, etc., and perhaps update them via Twitter and Ping are just super.
But require us to use blogs as a "digital life aggregator"? That's fine for the social engineers, maybe, but it is perfectly acceptable for those who wish to stop here or pause at this level and to use writing blogs just for that purpose, blogging (and writing, of course). After all, how many connections or "friends" can one person handle? I like my connections one-to-one, not one-to-many or worse yet, lost in the crowd of many-to-many. That's not connection, that's swishing around in the shallow end of the pond.
My Vanity Validator score was 61 out of 100 as I wrote this piece. What if the post went viral, and my score shot up to 91 ... so what?
This is what makes life interesting and the never-ending source of writing material! How boring our existence would be if everyone agreed and all birds sang the same song.
In the world of Wallace and Malik, blogs are only one stage of communications development. I can see that, and I can agree with it. I even rejoice at each new invention in the ways of the Web. For example, I think being able for writers and others interested in books to display their current or favorite reads via Shelfari, Googlereads, etc., and perhaps update them via Twitter and Ping are just super.
But require us to use blogs as a "digital life aggregator"? That's fine for the social engineers, maybe, but it is perfectly acceptable for those who wish to stop here or pause at this level and to use writing blogs just for that purpose, blogging (and writing, of course). After all, how many connections or "friends" can one person handle? I like my connections one-to-one, not one-to-many or worse yet, lost in the crowd of many-to-many. That's not connection, that's swishing around in the shallow end of the pond.
My Vanity Validator score was 61 out of 100 as I wrote this piece. What if the post went viral, and my score shot up to 91 ... so what?
How Famous Are You Online?
Labels: blogging, technology, websites, writers
posted by Georganna Hancock M.S. | 9:00 AM
3 Comments:
I scored a 39! Does that mean I got an F? Seriously, I think interacting with people through blogs is great and I enjoy the conversation, especially when dialogue is evident.
My score depended on what keyword I attached to my name.
I've met a lot of people through blogs but nothing beats sitting in front of someone and talking over a cup of coffee.
I should have saved the Validator for a Silly Saturday post! Nice to hear from you, Matt. What's shakin?
I never thought of searching myself for a key word, Queen. How clever of you! Let's see, shall I use "jaunty divorcee", "former Catlady" or how about "rogue writer"? (I'm reserving the latter for my next incarnation.)
No, I'm better by myself. Oh, fudge! I'm having a pop drop -- now it's only 59.
Post a Comment
<< Home