Reflections 3177

Blood & Rettberg

Rebecca Blood’s post called Weblogs: a History and Perspective was written in the year 2000 and thus contains information up to that point in the history of blogging.

The first thing that caught my interest amidst the names, dates, and computer language was that the term “weblogs,” was not a nifty word combining “web” and “blogs” and sharing the “b,” but it was, in fact, “web” and “logs.” While she didn’t say this outright – though Jill Walker does in the next article – I noticed it when she mentioned that the term went from “weblogs” to “wee-blogs” until it finally became just “blogs.” Thinking on this a little further, the use of the word “log” made perfect sense given what I already know.

Another bit that seemed to fit was when Brigitte Eaton evaluated submissions for her list of blogs by a single criteria: did the submission have dated entries? Thinking about this, I really don’t think there is anything else that really connects all blogs in their vast variety other than that.

It is weird to think that only people trained in HTML could be bloggers or, really, have their own website at all.

The later development that Blood seems fond of noting is the switch from a “passive audience” to a “participating public.” We are no longer sitting idly by while people tell us how things are and what we are required to think. We can question and discuss and understand things that used to be far outside our realm of reach.

Finally she mentioned that, while blogging, she learned what things she really liked and also felt her opinions and ideas were unique and important. That one can develop trust in one’s own perspective. This struck me quite hard as I doubt I’m alone in thinking, “How could anyone possibly care or find my thoughts valuable or worth hearing?” It’s pretty incredible that we had a medium available in which we can achieve that sort of state without having to become famous or join politics.

Jill Walker Rettberg has a much longer, PDF formatted, edition called Blogging, though we are only required to read the first chapter, “What is a blog?”

There is a quote at the end of the first paragraph, first chapter, that I adore: “A blog consists of more than words and images. It cannot be read simply for its writing, but the sum of writing, layout, connections and link, and the pace of publication.” The idea that we are presenting not only the writing and picture but an entire production of sorts to public view is intimidating, but it also feels empowering in that we can catch the eye of people from all over the world by our own actions and creations. This can be something really big if we strive for it.

Rettberg has several good points while driving towards some definition of a blog.

  1. An individual’s concept of what a “blog” is, is skewed by the different kinds of blogs one reads.
  2. There are different kinds of blogs:
    1. Diary-style – usually more private, stories of one’s life told to certain groups of family, friends, etc
    2. Filter-style – usually posts about what one has found online combined with personal commentary
    3. Topic-Driven – 1+ topics that the author/editor is interested in, with links connecting to other similar topic sources, filtering content for the reader
  3. Social media is a king of blogging, though usually considered “microblogging” i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Pinterest, etc

Finally, Rettberg gets to the crux of the chapter: What is a blog?

It depends on if one considers a blog to be a medium of writing or a genre of it.

She first states that Wikipedia defines a blog as “a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries typically displayed in reverse chronological order”November 1st, 2001.

This would be the best definition if one claims a blog to be a medium and thus can include things like company newsletters.

As a genre, the definition can be a little more ambiguous. Evan Williams, a co-founder of the site Blogger, stated three characteristics to define a blog: frequency, brevity, and personality. I think that the brevity part can be vary depending on who is posting, what they’re posting, and what medium they use to do so. Frequency, I believe is necessary to hold an audience’s attention, though not so often they can’t keep up. Personality is what makes us read a little bit and not what to stop. It creates a point of interest another blogger or site would not be able to achieve.

The final criteria I picked out was that it has to be in first person. Yes, this is obvious. These – usually – are not novels or short stories being posted.

The overall knowledge shared within the two articles are interesting. Some information repeated, some I already knew from my own experiences on blogging websites, and some was entirely new. I never considered that someone would want to write a diary in view of potentially thousands of people.

These articles gave me a real sense of perspective on blogging and its sheer volume of reach in both topics and population.




4 thoughts on “Blood & Rettberg”

  1. I thought you brought up very good points in your post. I’m going to start with your comment about HTML. At first I didn’t take in what HTML meant to bloggers when it first came into existence. I think most of the groundwork has already been done so now all a person has to do is make an account, choose a theme, and they are ready to have their own site. It took my ten minutes to look up how to link in the comments; I can’t imagine all the work that went in to write and figure out all the HTML codes to create all the working parts a blog can have.

    I also really liked your comment about perspective and blogging. You are not alone when you ask “Is what I have to say important? Will people care? Am I interesting enough to share?”.. Weblogs and now other forms of blogs (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) have given everyone a platform to share anything and EVERYTHING!! Do I personally think everyone needs to share EVERYTHING? No, but that’s my own perspective on it and my perspective isn’t the only perspective out there. I think the reason it has exploded so much is people like to feel they belong to something bigger than themselves. I personally believe blogging can be that something for people.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I personally struggled with the does anything I have to say really need to be put online. I think to some degree its hard not to argue that at least certain people, do not need any more people listening to them than is necessary. Maybe the real downfall to anyone having access to the internet is simply that anyone does have access. Yet I think even your own post is case in point that there is also some really good things about the internet. Your ideas were thoughtful, honest, and researched. You applied discipline and care and made some really good points. Likewise I can comment on that and add this, [ ] which really adds support to your point about first person perspective. In this way I think its definitely cool that we can converse using many viewpoints with varying levels of authority and in doing so expand what we come into contact with. The article points out that anyone can have a soapbox, and i think that is boring, but conversation is the point of blogging. So write on, I think your thoughts made for good conversation!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s