Some thoughts on blogging this morning…
We write… but for whom?
A writer before his/her blog is somewhat like a teacher (it might be interesting to see who considers themselves authoritarian teachers and non-authoritarian teachers… and why, but we’ll not go there today) before an invisible class. We have information, perspectives and/or experiences to share… and people read. We know this because our “counters” tell us so. Yet, we can’t always “see” those who read. Occasionally, the readers reveal just a little more of themselves through comments, “likes”, “shares”, and even “ping-backs”, but the percentage of those who do these things is low when compared to the numbers the “counters” tell us are visiting.
It’s not, however, a real time classroom. It’s an timeless void… or at least as long as our content remains visible on the Web.
Considering the writing can exist within a timeless void, do you write for today alone, or will the content (at least some) be as timeless as the platform?
We write, but for what (“what” being not a “reason” but, for lack of another description, an inanimate device)
But, it’s not always about directly “teaching” people. It’s also about “teaching” the Web (at which time, an argument might be made that the “device” is not really “inanimate”).
The content that we deliver to the Web fills voids. Well, at least sometimes; other times it takes the same content and pitches it from a different angle. Does it fill voids where our perspectives are not present, or does it fill voids where, simply… the information (or the depth of information that we would like to see) is not present? Ah… the information population of the Web is ongoing. Then too, I suppose we could also say that the content fills voids within ourselves.
The problem, however, is that content is not infinitely weaved.
How deep then is the fabric of your writing?
The volume of content produced by some on the Web is massive. Hundreds and even thousands of blog posts are out there from many who have written, but… too often, the content exists only in a vacuum, unconnected to the many other posts that truly form the greater depth of the essence of the writer. True, we have a few hyperlinks in each post, but we cannot link it all together. Because it all cannot be connected, when a reader visits… reads and comments… it’s often a reflection of the limited content they have read in the blog, unless… unless… they are regular followers. In the case of the “splash-n-dash” comments, from those who only respond to a single post, have we failed as teachers, or has the reader failed as one who has not yet grasped the difference in reading for print and reading for the web?
Thoughts?
Cenantua's Blog 
S. Thomas Summers
August 5, 2012
I write for others as much as I eat for others. My nourishment is pennicle. I eat for me. In the same way, I write, selfishly or not, for my nourishment. If another takes joy in my nourishment, whether in my eating or my writing, than I am ever more nourished.
Robert Moore
August 5, 2012
I agree. Writing does provide a form of satisfaction for self/nourishment, but, as I do not go back and consume the same content I create and am more focused on engineering the content for others, I wonder if the “for others” element trumps the “for self”, or if each are equal.
S. Thomas Summers
August 5, 2012
Your point is well taken. Still, if no eyes, besides my own, gave light to my words, my pen would continue to scratch the page.
S. Thomas Summers
Author of Private Hercules McGraw: Poems of the American Civil War
acwresearcher
August 5, 2012
Because of this conundrum you mention, the device (Internet/Web) dictates content, to some extent, be engineered. By the same token, because you (and most bloggers, regardless of content) are interested in writing as a cathartic device as well as an informational one, content engineering can take on several forms: real-time, archival, aggregation and curation; and be presented using the various multimedia elements at our disposal in the Web environment.
You have raised questions in your latest series of posts on digital content that, I think, at a broad level, have not really been examined. Yes, content engineers like Google programmers and WordPress coders look at this on a regular basis, but those of us producing audience-accessible content don’t often think about why we need to be content engineers as much as programmers and coders are.
Robert Moore
August 5, 2012
“You have raised questions in your latest series of posts on digital content that, I think, at a broad level, have not really been examined.”
Exactly. I think as historians… or as those who wish to deliver historical content… the greater focus has been on that and not on the architecture of the delivery. I think being conscious of the mechanics is important, but not being fully considered. Is it important? I think so.
Robert Moore
August 6, 2012
I think this also raises another issue that we have discussed off-line, in the past, Greg… how to settle into that situation with the Web, whereby we become more in-tune with the environment, and architect content for the Web as a natural part of process… without being consumed in the engineering (how) and losing site of the content we wish to share (what and why).
mib8
August 5, 2012
It seems closer to doing a radio show. You might get arbitron ratings, but how reliable are they, really? And you might get a few calls, but what percentage of listeners actually get interested enough to call?
Robert Moore
August 5, 2012
Yes… and no. The sustainability of content, I think, needs to be addressed as well, and that falls outside the scope of a something meant for “today”, such as a radio show. It is delivered and goes away. The content on the Web has a longer life-span.
Janet
August 5, 2012
How many forums do you read on a regular basis?
How many do you respond to?
What are the things that would turn you off when considering whether to participate?
Robert Moore
August 5, 2012
You’re taking it from the reader’s perspective, which is different from the writer’s perspective, but… from the writer’s perspective, how should the reader’s perspective be considered when engineering content?
Janet
August 5, 2012
If a blogger or guest made mincemeat out of my comments, I would not return to the site.
If the guest comments are not managed, and the numerous comments are irrelevant to the blog, I would not contribute.
I feel that a lot of people reading this particular blog would also be involved in research and projects, and would find the information useful for their endeavors. I think citations are important for that reason. The reasons that people relate to articles such as these are varied, and may be surprising. Some may want to go relic hunting. Some may want to start their own blog, and are looking for ideas on how to set it up. Some may be looking at the background color of the page, the type of font, etc. Others may take notes for women’s studies.
As far as the commentary part, I think comments are important for the principles of truth and justice. Also logic. If a writer shields their “lessons” from comments, even in a subtle way, then readers may silently follow the drama to see how long it will take somebody to “set up” the writer, and make them look ridiculous. Debate serves the purpose of hashing out ideas that people may not think through, as far as the consequences of their theories. I transport myself to the set of “Cheers” when reading a blog, and look for the comedy.
As an example of a comment in that venue, the idea of Southern Unionism makes about much sense to me as a Barry Goldwater club. I keep thinking: ‘Dude, haven’t you heard, the election is over.’ Of course, this blog is much too tasteful to post a comment like that, so I just think about it over and over and don’t say anything like that.
Robert Moore
August 6, 2012
Hi Janet,
Your comment takes this in a somewhat different direction, but, there are things that should be considered. Interaction with the reader and poorly maintained (inefficient handling of spam comments, as an example) can most certainly be some things that would send a reader elsewhere. Although, I have to say, I do have little tolerance with some folks who have commented, coming in and acting as if to be some sort of “bull in a China shop,” and I’ve been generous in returning similar reactions to their comments… even going as far as to block some. As for content, that too can be received with mixed opinions. Some readers, for example, might not wish to challenge their own perceptions of the Southerner in the Civil War, being perfectly content with the South = the Confederacy. In that respect, the content of this blog might be like a necklace of garlic to them, sending them reeling in disgust. There are others, however, who come in with a more open mind, even if it might challenge their perceptions of history (which might actually offer the more rewarding debates, as long as they remain civil). There are also casual and inquisitive readers, serious students and researchers. The possibilities are far ranging. Even so, as a blog writer, the writer must be true to himself/herself, and not let the reader guide the direction in which the blog goes. It’s easy to be turned in another direction, writing more for the audience and less for the self. In some sense, I suppose, this is a learned discipline in writing for the Web.
As for the comment… “the idea of Southern Unionism makes about much sense to me as a Barry Goldwater club. I keep thinking: ‘Dude, haven’t you heard, the election is over.’”… that might best be discussed in one of the Southern Unionist posts, but I am curious as to more explanation on what drives the comment. I also have to say… I do appreciate the reference to this blog being tasteful 🙂