MOVING OVER

Yeah, go ahead & update your bookmarks

The new Bad Example

I'm designating this spot a historical landmark and leaving it as is in all its glory for the benefit of old friends and future generations.

AN EXPERIMENT

I'm going to test drive a Blogger site for a while, because I really hate the commenting system I'm using here.

Haloscan was wonderful. Then JS-Kit bought it and converted it to Echo, and now it's a useless, annoying piece of shit.

Anyway, I'm posting here for a while to see if I like it better (same name, different URL):

http://badexample2.blogspot.com/

Don't update your bookmarks yet. This is only a test drive. I'll let you know.

Meanwhile, stop in & leave a lot of comments so I can see if it's an improvement over Echo.

AND I THOUGHT IT WAS COOL TO HEAR FROM LATVIA

I have, from time to time, bragged about getting blog visitors from foreign countries.

There, I Fixed It got a visit from the freakin' space station.

Very cool.

I MADE THE NEW YORK TIMES

Just the online edition.

And only because they use one of those script-generated "Headlines Around The Web" features.

But it's still funny, because next to a serious and fawning story about Oprah, is a link to my rude little post about a picture of her where it looks like she's getting felt up by Michelle Obama. Here's a screen capture (click to enlarge):

Screw you, New York Times. Serves you right for trusting the internet.

ADVICE FOR AN IDENTITY CRISIS

Bloggranddaughter Rave of Quid Nunc is contemplating:

A) A blog name change

B) Blogging her attempt at weight loss as a form of motivation

First, my standard disclaimer:

Rave - it's YOUR blog, and you can do whatever the hell you want to with it. Consider other people's opinions for what you think they're worth, but it's YOUR decision. Your blog is a reflection and extension of YOU, and its sole purpose is to bring you happiness. It is of use to you only so long as it fulfills this mission.

Now, my opinion, to be taken with a grain of salt.

A blog name is the name you give yourself, and so long as it reflects the essence of you, there's no reason to change it. I've only changed my blog name once - from Bad Money to Bad Example, and although the catalyst was changing my blogging software and site host, the fact is I was liberating myself, because Bad Money was a conceptually limiting title. It was perfect when I started, because my blog mostly revolved around graffiti currency. Over time, who I was expanded and evolved quite a bit, and a more broad-based, conceptually-encompassing title was appropriate.

In your case, you're considering changing your blog name from something broad to something narrow. In a sense, this might be good, because it reflects your desire to narrow your focus on a particular goal. However, I fear that over time you might find that this has a chilling effect on your desire to blog about anything EXCEPT weight loss, making your blog less useful to you in the long run.

My suggestion is not to change your blog name, but to change your tagline.

Or in your case, add one.

Because a blog name says who you are. A tagline says what you're trying to do. In my case "Bad Example: A celebration of things kids shouldn't try at home".

So consider changing your banner image to say "Quid Nunc: One Fat Chick on a Mission" or "Quid Nunc: Gee, I Hope I Don't Lose My Boobs Over This". If you want to really emphasize how important your weight loss project is, go ahead and make the tagline font larger than your blog name font. Then put all your weight-loss-related posts in a single category with a link to that category in your sidebar.

But a blog name change?... I don't think it's appropriate. You are so much more than just a weight loss program. You are a whole person. A wonderful, delightful person. Please don't change the person when all you're really doing is just changing the person's direction.

Having said that, however, I say again: it's your blog - do what you want. If you think a name change is the way to go, I will support you completely and cheerfully update your link.

ONE OF *THOSE* MOMENTS

When even a jaded misanthrope like me feels a little closer to his fellow man

Checked my referrer logs for the first time in months, and found this link.

Which leads to a Bad Example post, with all the words crudely translated into Dutch by Google, but all the colors & fonts & pictures intact.

Huh.

Small world.

Hope he found what he was looking for.

It just always blows my mind a little when something I post directly affects the life of someone who doesn't speak the same language as me. Living in small-town Wisconsin, that's not something that happens very... ever.

AN OPEN LETTER TO OGRE

Ogre of Ogre's Politics & Views - one of the strongest, most consistent freedom-fighters I know - is throwing in the towel:

I’m not going to vanish off the face of the earth, but I’m not going to be here. There is no point in it. I’m done fighting. I’m going to spend the rest of my days, as long as I can, just being free.

To which I say, with sadness:

Everyone's got their breaking point.

But as I recall from "When Hell Was In Session", if a POW broke, his comrades would encourage him not to STAY broken. They told him to put himself back together and keep resisting.

If you decide eventually that you can un-break - and I sincerely hope you do - I'll gladly welcome you back to the fight.

Meanwhile, if nothing else, please leave the blog. Someone who's stuggling might stumble over there and find just the words of inspiration he needs to keep going. You always had a way with words, forming them regularly into powerful, succinct arguments for what is good and right.

Sure, the idiots won't listen to you, but you've never been talking to the idiots, and idiots won't be the ones responsible for turning the tide.

And although you haven't won the war, you've inspired those who fight the battles with the ideas they need to keep them alive in the trenches.

God bless you, Ogre, and good luck.

SO... WHAT'S BLOGGING LIKE?

Very much like being an artist.

And what's it like to get an Instalanche?

Also very much like being an artist.

INDISPENSIBLE BLOGGING TOOL

ColorJack: find the color you like and get the HTML code for it instantly.

[Note: works like crap with IE. Use Firefox]

[Hat tip: Twenty-Sided]

ALMOST AS GOOD AS A PAT ON THE HEAD AND A COOKIE

Scott of Dangerously Irrelevant has come up with an idea for publicly recognizing excellent commenters - awarding them the Fantastic Commenter badge:

Of course, you can always just do what *I* do and make blogkids out of them, but that's a personal decision you'll have to make for yourself.

BLOGGING TIPS: DO... UH... DON'T... NO, WAIT...

FIAR of Radioactive Liberty made me giggle with his post "12 Simple Rules Guaranteed to Improve Your Blogging", wherein he briefly yet passionately argues on both sides of six issues about which people commonly dispense blogging advice. It's only about a 2 minute read, so go read it now, because I'm about to spoil the effect by offering a serious weighing-in on the topics.

[2 minute pause]

1) Do/Don't proofread meticulously - if you're a strictly "for fun" blogger, just run it through a spell-checker once & toss it up there. Your family & friends won't care, and they probably won't even notice as long as the first and last letters are right. If you need a spell-checker, here's a nice little standalone program (very short download - 555k).

If you're a "practicing writer blogger" or just obsessive-compulsive, then go through your posts with a fine tooth comb. Personally, I find it helpful to read through them in a couple of different fonts. Another trick is to read it backwords - that way you're looking at the words instead of reading phrases. More proofreading tricks here.

2) Do/Don't have open comments - I vote open, of course. You can't feel the love without comments. The only good reason to not have comments is if you're getting hundreds of them on every post, and a good chunk of them are abusive. So basically everyone except Michelle Malkin should have comments enabled. And even Michelle is bringing them back, so what does THAT tell you?

3) Do/Don't respond to comments - In a perfect world, everyone would be like Ogre of Ogre's Politics & Views. He consistently responds to every comment he gets, and does so in the comments section of his posts. Very encouraging to his readers.

Other bloggers (like SarahK of Mountaineer Musings) regularly respond to comments via e-mail. Some people do varying degrees of either or both. Personally, I believe that acknowledging your commenters is a GOOD thing, and you should do it whenever possible, time permitting.

4) Do/Don't have a life - Do. Unless you have a contractual obligation to provide a certain number of posts by a particular deadline, and failure to do so will cost you money, don't hesitate to turn off the computer and even completely forego posting for days on end. Your readers will survive, and the people who actually LIVE with you will appreciate the attention. Besides, if you have open comments, your readers may even keep your blog entertaining for you.

NOTE: The fact that I personally haven't had a postless day in months does NOT invalidate the preceding advice. It just means I'm an addict who is currently dodging his 12-step meetings.

5) Do/Don't talk about yourself - Who cares? Just POST, dammit!

Truth is, it doesn't matter WHAT you write about. The people who enjoy reading THAT topic, in YOUR style WILL find you. The rest... don't really matter.

Small caveat - if you're a "topical" rather than a "personal" blogger, it's still a good idea to have an "about me" category to store posts of a personal nature so that newcomers can get a feel for your experiences & motivations. Having some background on a writer adds depth and richness to your readers' experience of your topical posts. If nothing else, at least have one post of basic biographical information that's linked in your sidebar.

6) Do/Don't use profanity - As a general rule, I say no. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my 4-letter Anglo-Saxonisms as much as the next former Sailor, and I have great admiration for those who raise swearing to an art form. However, I find that avoiding curse words has two advantages:

First, it forces you to come up with clever metaphors to replace the obscenities, which makes you a better writer.

Second, you get more site traffic, because more people feel comfortable surfing to your site while they're at work.

Still, there are situations that DO call for judicious f-bombing, and I make no apologies for that, since I know my readers are adult enough to deal with it, and they understand.

Besides, it's not the swearing that keeps decent people away from my site, it's the smutty innuendo & dirty pictures.

No, wait... that's what keeps them coming back.

Nevermind.

Anyway, the important thing is consistency. If you're gonna swear, then swear. If you're not, then don't. But don't suddenly start posting Eddie Murphy routines on your Christian Mommy blog. It's a gross discourtesy to those readers you've lulled into believing that they can safely surf your site with their pre-teen kids watching over their shoulders.

In conclusion, I want to leave you with this:

It's your blog, so it's your rules. Do what you want, when you want, and have as much fun as possible while you do it. Don't let anyone tell you how you "should" blog.

Except me ;-)

I DON'T KNOW... I KINDA LIKE IT

Shamus of Twenty Sided, and Steven of Chizumatic are both discussing how miserably annoying it is to get nitpicky comments about a post. The kind of off-topic one-upsmanship remarks that have nothing to do with what a post is about, but rather make hay from an irrelevant point. As Robert of Creative Destruction describes it:

Example of useful nitpickery: if the actual author of the linked post was Frank Johnson [and not Shamus Young], correcting my error would be material; non-useful nitpickery would be pointing out that nitpickery isn’t a word.

I've never been popular enough at Bad Example to get nitpickers in annoying quanitities.

However, I've gotten them on occasion at IMAO.

Mostly I just ignore it. I've got other things to do. And when that happens, I discover that other commenters tend to jump in and browbeat the nitpickers for me. I just sit back & watch the fun.

Nevertheless, I try not to take nitpickers personally. Part of the reason for nitpicking is that when you're reading a blog, there's an urge to make some sort of contact with the author. To let them know that you've read the post and are thinking about it. A nitpick is the quickest, easiest response outside of :-D or LOL!

Also, as a commenter - especially on a post that already has a lot of other comments - you want to say something that no one else already has. Nitpicks have this characteristic.

So what I'm saying is that - a lot of times - nitpickers are just trying to be friendly.

However, I'm NOT saying that Shamus & Steven are wrong for feeling annoyed. I mean, a big slobbery dog is also "just trying to be friendly" when he licks you, but that doesn't mean you have to pretend that you LIKE getting a faceful of warm dogspit just because he "means well". Bopping him with a rolled up newspaper (or deleting his comment, to apply the analogy) is a perfectly good response, too.

Then again, it's easy for me to be laid back about it. I mostly write goofy posts & try to make people laugh. You kind of expect a hefty dose of smart-assery in reply. If I were trying to write something thoughtful or serious every day, I'd probably get sick of people who leave 10 paragraph comments that miss the point, too.

Meanwhile, until that time comes, feel free to nitpick all you want on my posts. I won't delete you.

Although I *do* reserve the right to mock, demean, belittle, or impugn you, your ancestors, or your primary and/or secondary sexual characteristics at my discretion.

OPINION, PLEASE

Let's say you leave a particularly witty comment at some blog. The site owner has a clever response. Would you prefer to see that response put in the comments so that everyone can see how the site owner noticed how witty you are, or would you prefer that the response be e-mailed to you so that you can enjoy the personal attention?

If your answer is "it depends", please explain.

ALSO COOL

Being linked by a blog that I have NO idea what language it's in.

Whatever it is, it's got more umlauts than a T-shirt stand at a Mötley Crüe/Blue Öyster Cult concert.

Can anyone help me figure out where Huolestunut is from?

UPDATE: Finland!

YA KNOW WHAT ELSE IS COOL?

When you write a post and Caturo of Gladius translates it into Portuguese.

Thank you, Caturo, I am both blushing and flattered.

THE FIFTEEN MINUTES I ALWAYS WANTED

NOTE: This post is purely self-congratualtory twaddle and is quite likely of interest to no one except the author. If you get bored, just click away. Don't feel obligated to comment just because you're here.

On the other hand, maybe you've been in a similar position. In which case, say whatever's on your mind.

When I first started blogging, I had a dream - more of a pre-conceived notion really - that one day hundreds of people would read my blog and go "OO! Look at this brilliantly-written post!".

As it turned out, those hundreds of people were actually dozens, they came one at a time, and none of them were actually all that blown away at what they read. But they at least found my writing amusing enough to want to come back for more. After a while, a lot of them didn't even come for the writing, they came because they liked me as a person. The writing was secondary.

I've been blogging for almost four years now, and at this point in my evolution, most of the folks who stop by do it because of who I am, and not what I write.

And it's good to be loved, and it's good to have a circle of friends who give a damn.

The downside to this, of course, is that when one of these friends links something I wrote, I have to wonder... how much of this is liking the writing, and how much is liking the writer? To which question there can never be an honest answer.

So it makes me question whether my writing is worth a crap on it's own, or if I'm strictly getting by on charm.

What I've always wanted was to write something that got picked up, passed around, "oo"-ed & "ah"-ed over, and generally admired WITHOUT my having to lift a finger to do any self-promotion.

That's never really happened. Sometimes I've written stuff that I thought was very good, but in order to get it noticed, I've had to e-mail links. Other times I've written something clever, then posted it at IMAO where it would get some attention (heck, even got a link from the Puppy Blender over there once), but then I have to wonder how much of that attention was due to the sweet cachet of the IMAO brand name, which owes it's value principally to Frank J.'s comedic talents.

Recently, however, something happened to validate me that can only be attributed to good writing, and it feels heavenly.

Last Saturday, I posted a entry at IMAO called "I Am Huff Po". When I'd first conceived of it a couple days prior, it occurred to me that - if I did it right - it might resonate with a lot of people and actually generate a lot of traffic. I waited all weekend for some reaction after posting it, but outside of a few (VERY few) comments, the piece seemed largely ignored.

*sigh*

So after 40 hours of gathering dust, I do what I do with a lot of my IMAO posts - I cross-posted it at Bad Example for the benefit of those readers (friends, actually) who can't stand the insanely-long load times at IMAO.

And that's when it happened.

Blake of Laughing Wolf - a friend and reader - posted a link to the version of "I Am Huff Po" that I'd posted at Bad Example. Not at his relatively low-traffic personal site, but at the highly-visible Blackfive.

Which was VERY cool, but I didn't take it to be necessarily a reflection on the quality of the piece, since I know Blake, and that could taint his objectivity.

And that's when it REALLY happened.

Michelle Malkin linked to Bad Example. Not only linked, but linked as an update at the TOP of the post (she usually updates at the bottom).

Little Green Footballs linked to Bad Example. Not only linked, but with the enthusiastic phrase "dead-on parody alert". I also noticed that it got 156 Diggs. Now, I'm not exactly sure what a Digg is, except that it can be used as a relative measure of the post's popularity. Considering that most LGF posts get under 100 of them, I take this as favorable feedback.

JihadWatch linked to Bad Example with the giddily ego-boosting description "a terrific parody of/addendum to Michelle Malkin's magnificent "I am John Doe" piece, skewering the Huffington Post's willfully clueless Leftist jihad enablers."

It popped up on the GWRRA message board.

Bookworm Room said "hilariously funny [...] Read it and laugh."

Someone even put it on an Investor Village message board.

It's probably in some other places, too, but Sitemeter only gives me the last 100 refers, so that's all I know about.

The point is this. None of these people know me or like me or owe me anything or mistakenly think they're linking to something Frank J wrote. This praise isn't for me as a person, or for me as a member of IMAO, it's strictly for what I wrote.

I can't begin to express how good - how reassuring - this feels.

The funny thing is that people who read the posts that linked me are all going to wonder the same thing - "Who is this 'Bad Harvey' fella? I've never heard of him. Must be some overnight sensation."

Overnight... yeah...

2000+ posts at Bad Money

1000+ posts at Alliance HQ

5000- posts at Bad Example

100+ Precision Guided Humor posts spent honing my politically-oriented comedic ear

4- years of averaging 5+ posts a day.

Overnight...

Anyway, yeah... it feels good.

Now if the Puppy Blender will just put down his hobo-filleting knife long enough to toss a link my way, I could die happy.

UPDATE: Hot Air says "well played".

Redstate says "Read on via the link. It's worth it!" and describes it as a "riposte".

Blonde Sagacity says "Must Read!"

LEAST IMPORTANT THING ON YOUR BLOG

Most blogs have a calendar on the sidebar.

Does anyone actually use that thing?

LOOK! A CONTEST WITH FREE STUFF!

Jim of bRight and Early is the operator of the Blogiversary Database. Essentially he's keeping track of which blogs started when.

I think it's a cool idea, and I've had his little javascript thingy in my left sidebar (just below the quotes section) for some time.

The trouble is, unless you opt in by signing up, your blog won't be listed, and no one will know it's your blogiversary without you dropping some hints (like posting "it's my blogiversary tomorrow!", which makes you look like a gift-grubbing, attention-seeking little gold-digger... not that there's anything wrong with that).

To encourage participation (and hopefully hit his goal of 200 participants by year's end), he's holding a little contest which will include drawings for prizes from the pool of entrants.

Three ways to enter:

Enter your info into the Blogiversary Database: Win a free one week blogad.

Display the Blogiversary Database code on your blog: Win a free two week blogad.

Write a post pimping the Blogiversary Database: Win a free one month blogad.

Obviously, I decided to enter all three.

Anyway, all the pertinent details can be found here.

I strongly encourage Bad Example Family and Clan members to sign up, since I tend to only make it through my blogroll once a week, and this will help me to congratulate you in a timely manner on your big day.

ON LURKING

Bloggranddaughter Rave of Quid Nunc is pondering blog lurkers.

You know... those people who read your blog that you didn't KNOW read your blog?

She's seeking definitions, and I'm not really sure what to tell her. But I'll take a stab at it.

I'd define "lurking" as reading someone's blog without leaving a comment.

I'd define a "lurker" as someone who habitually reads your blog without leaving a comment.

For example, I'm inclined to leave comments whenever I visit a blog, but once in a while, I simply have nothing to say regarding any entries posted since my last visit. So then I'm "lurking".

But since I leave enough comments that the blog's author knows that I visit regularly, I'm not a "lurker", except in a narrow, time-period delineated sense of the word.

Then there's the WHY of lurking.

Various reasons:

Technical difficulties, laziness, or being short on time. Sure, you WANT to say something, but some blogs have VERY annoying spam-prevention hoops to jump through, like registration or "type in the unreadable letters". Sometimes even having to type in your name is too big of a burden when all you wanted to leave was a simple "LOL".

The aforementioned lack of inspiration. Some folks - especially non-blogging lurkers - have an incredibly high inspiration threshhold. You'd have to mention something QUITE near and dear to their hearts to get them to comment.

Shyness. I had this bad before I started blogging. I *had* responses to posts, but I felt like it'd be impertinent, intrusive, or even downright RUDE to type my thoughts onto someone else's web page. Like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It took me a while to understand that ANY comment is welcome by ANY blogger.

Being an outsider. Somewhat similar, but not exactly. In this case it's not through fear of the host, but fear of the other commenters. A lot of popular blogs (and even the smaller ones) have a group of regular commenters, who obviously have a warm relationship with the blogger and each other, and leave comments full of personal references and inside jokes, often not even related to the actual topic of the post. Leaving a comment in such a situation feels like crashing a stranger's family reunion.

Distracted Thread Syndrome. So maybe the post inspired a comment, and you're not shy and you're not worried about what other people think. But then you read the comments, and 90% of them are discussing an off-topic remark left by the first commenter. It's like the subject has entirely changed. Leaving an on-topic, post-related remark at this point just seems awkward. Time to sneak away quietly.

Cold-Shouldered. You're inspired, brave, know all the in-jokes and you're the first commenter. And the last. And it happens again and again. Every time you drop something in the comments, you're roundly ignored. No acknowledgement whatsoever. You feel shut out. But the blogger still writes amazing stuff, so you keep going back. Except now you're just a lurker. And you always will be.

With those items in mind, I have advice.

For lurkers: Anyone who has comments enabled WANTS comments, regardless of quality. Nobody expects you to leave some sort of Shakespearian sonnet (although that would be TOTALLY cool!), bloggers are just looking for a little attention for their writing. Believe me, some days all it takes is one little :-) to make a blogger's day.

A good place to start is any post with zero comments. Bloggers HATE those. If you can acknowledge that post's existence I guarantee* you will earn enough good karma to get out of a speeding ticket the next time you get pulled over.

*(not a guarantee)

For bloggers: When someone new leaves a comment for the first time, try to acknowledge it in some way. Leave a follow-up comment, or reply directly if the comment is e-mailed to you, or just click on the URL to vist the commenter's page - maybe you'll find something there to leave a comment on and make THAT blogger's day. At the very least, you'll show up in their referer logs.

Personally, I don't always have time to do that, since I'm frequently distracted by shiny objects, but I'd like to state for the record that I read EVERY comment I get. So DO know that I appreciate every one of them, even when I don't say so at the time.

Now having said that I feel that I have to mention the one good reason to stay a lurker and never leave a comment:

Fear of being made into my next blogchild. A real and terrible danger. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I'm sure my blogkids can back me up on that one.

Or they would, if they weren't afraid to comment.

BECAUSE YOUR EGO NEEDS CRUSHING

You may have heard the term "A-list blogger" before. It's the tag granted to that uber-cool clique of "been-there-done-that-buy-my-T-shirt" bloggers whose names are ubiquitous and who sit around talking with their uppity friends about how wonderful they all are.

Not that I'm jealous or anything.

But if you've ever wanted to find out just how inadequately you stack up against the rest of the blogosphere, well, now you can:

The Blogebrity Widget (aka the Total Perspective Vortex)

Just plug in your URL and find out how devastatingly unimportant you truly are.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go out and kill a grizzly with my bare hands to try to reclaim my manhood.

FREE BLOG CONTENT

Got nothing to post?

Going out of town, but can't find a guest blogger?

Wish you had something new on your blog every day, but don't want the hassle of daily posting?

No problem.

Word of the Day
Article of the Day
This day in history
Today's birthday
In the News
Quotation of the Day
Match Up
Hangman

All available - just need to slap the code in your template, and you'll give people something to do while they're waiting for you to post.

Or you can just ignore your readers and hope they'll go away, like I do.

[Hat tip to blogdaughter Michele of Letters From New York City for sending me the link]

ON SELF-CENSORSHIP

Blogdaughter Tammi of Tammi's World ponders a bit on how blogging changes for you after you've met some of your readers:

I find myself holding back on what I write. I don't speak my mind as easily. [...] I don't always hit publish. I worry about what "people think". Some how, some where it became more about other people. Worryin' about how they saw me, how my feelings were being viewed. I actually worried about what people were saying about me.

I know the feeling. When I first started blogging, my posts were sort of an open letter, but I did have an "ideal reader" in mind. Someone who would just accept my words and not use them against me personally. A good, non-judgmental friend.

As I've met some bloggers in real life, the target of my "open letter" has become more concrete and less ideal. I know who's reading this, and I know that some things I write may touch sore spots.

It sometimes makes things a bit uncomfortable. And maybe I avoid harsh treatment of certain topics out of courtesy.

But I will say this: there have been times when I've thought "Should I post this? Is this too much?", yet every time I've hit "publish" on one of those, the reaction has been one of understanding - of "I've been there too".

It's scary while you're waiting for the comments to arrive, not knowing if someone will take you to task over what you've written, but you grow from pushing through that fear.

And you find out you're not alone.

My short advice on the topic is this. Write what you want. Then go ahead and imagine the possible objections you think certain readers might have to it. If you're willing to face those objections and you're willing to explain and/or justify what you said, go ahead & publish, then wait for the outraged responses.

You probably won't get them.

If you do, well, you're already prepared.

And if you explain your position calmly and rationally, you might even win some people over. It's happened to me before.

However, if things go horribly wrong and there's bickering and trolling, all is not lost. You still have friends to watch your back. As AlliCadem of Can I Have Some Whine With That Cheese? said in Tammi's comments "when you get an intruder, your blog family comes to the rescue".

Thank God for blog family...

HARVEY'S LAW

As soon as you post that blogging will be light, you will immediately post more entries than have in the last month :-/

QUICK TRAFFIC CHEAT

In theory, this should work.

Check Google Zeitgeist, find out what the most popular search terms are, then blog about them.

If you blog intelligently about these topics instead of just tossing the phrases in randomly, you might actually have people bookmark you as being hip & trendy.

Just like the all nude Avril Lavigne.

YOU SHOULD'VE COMMENTED WHILE YOU HAD THE CHANCE

Blogson and rusty trumpetee _Jon of We Swear is ruminating on the topic of closing comments.

I don't have a problem with closing comments to avoid spammers & trolls. The blogosphere tends to run on a 24-hour cycle, traffic-wise - the bulk of your comments will come within one day of posting.

Personally, I have a 168-hour cycle, but that's rather atypical.

Anyway, even for a post that gets passed around all over the place, it's pretty much done getting legitimate traffic after 3 or 4 days. After that, the only person's feelings you're hurting by closing comments are spammers.

And mine, but THOSE obviously don't count anyway :-P

So go ahead and close comments at your discretion. Blogging is something you should do for yourself, and if leaving comments open is sucking the joy out of the experience, then close them.

SURE... *NOW* THEY WANT TO HELP US...

Calimus of Technography points out that Microsoft is working on making Word more blogger-friendly.

Too little, too late, but good on 'em, I suppose.

I stopped using Word a couple years ago. My Bad Money blog is littered with "?" from their &*%$ing proprietary quotes, apostrophes, & ellipses.

I curse them all and their illegitimate progeny.

I'm strictly a NoteTab Light kinda guy now. And on the rare occasions when I *do* compose in something else, I copy & paste it into NTL, which cleans all the crap out of it and gives me nice, plain, unformatted text.

Mostly I don't bother with spell-check since most of my typos are homonyms and skipped words, which wouldn't get spotted anyway. On the rare occasions that I don't know how to spell a word, I just Google it with my best guess. If I get the [definition] link on the top-right of the page, I know I spelled it right.

Meanwhile, if I weren't such a cheap bastard, I'd shell out the $10 to upgrade to NoteTab Standard, which includes a spellcheck feature, but I'm not wasting good beer money on something I'll hardly ever use.

IT'S NOT THE SIZE, IT'S THE FREQUENCY

Blogdaughter Teresa of Technicalities brings up the topic of feeling a little hurt when your friends don't visit your blog & comment, even though they've been commenting elsewhere.

Being a guy, I'm less susceptable to this whole "feeling" thing, but not completely immune. And for those on my blogroll who may wonder where I've been & why I never stop by, I'll explain it like this.

I've got a HUGE list of regular reads (Annoying Neighbors & Bloggers I've Met), and there came a point where I simply couldn't make the rounds every day any more. I'm currently on a 7-day cycle - I usually start at the top of Annoying Neighbors on Monday, and finish the last of the Bloggers I've Met on the weekend. How fast I go in the middle depends on the vagaries of random mood swings & real-life time-demands.

Now, I'm pre-disposed to comment when I stop by. If your post inspires even a short, smartass remark, I'll likely leave it. However, sometimes I'm tired or just uninspired, and I've got nothing to say, so instead of forcing it, I'll just move on and hope that I get noticed in the referer logs. It's not personal, it's just that sometimes Bosco's out carousin', and the pointy-stick-o-inspiration is nowhere to be found.

Anyway, just wanted you to know that if you're on my list, you DO get read at least weekly. Sometimes more often, if I'm following a link from somewhere else, but always once somewhere in that 7-day period.

DOES THIS MEAN I'M COOL NOW? (REVISED 3:30PM)

I'm on Blogs With A Face!

I'll be the Bad Example Clan banner. By special arrangement with the host, if you're a member of the Bad Example Clan, mention it when you send in your picture, and Thomsen (the brilliant and talented host of the site) will put you in my row (or somewhere to my right, at least, depending on your screen resolution).

[Hat tip: American Digest]

DOES IT DO ANY GOOD TO EMAIL HIGH-TRAFFIC BLOGGERS? - UPDATED 4-14-06 7PM

(Following up on this post)

How?

Be brief, be polite, and only submit links that clearly fit the high-traffic blog's theme. Ask yourself, "am I certain that [high-traffic blogger's] readers would be interested in this?"

Also, don't be offended if you don't hear back. Your e-mail was very likely read, but only so many of the dozens or hundreds received every day can be responded to. Don't take it personally. It's just that there are only so many hours in a day that can be spent writing, and those have to be split between answering e-mails & blogging.

SUBJ:What's the best way to send an e-mail that you'll read? (short, no reply required)

First, please forgive the unsolicited e-mail, but I'm doing some research for a post on blogging, and I'm hoping you can help me.

Someone recently remarked to me that bloggers with high-traffic sites don't read e-mails from - or link to - anyone except other high traffic bloggers. I don't think that's true. I think it's more a matter of having a tactful approach, and I wrote a post saying as much:

http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/166595.php

Now, I'm sure you have other subjects to write about, and if you have no interest in this topic, I understand completely, so there's no need to act on this e-mail at all if you don't want to.

However, it occurs to me that you probably get dozens of annoying "please link this" e-mails every day. Discussing my post would give you a perfect excuse to school your readers on the art of sending you short, on-topic, useful e-mails instead of rambling junk - a topic that would normally be off-theme for your blog.

Whether you decide to link to my post or not, you have my express permission to quote this e-mail in full or in part.

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Harvey Olson
Bad Example
http://badexample.mu.nu/

Since this experiment was all about site traffic, I did NOT limit myself based on a blog's political leanings, so I tapped a few of the big left-wing bloggers, too, as well as a couple blogs devoted to celebrity gossip.

However, I was most interested in seeing whether a "cold-calling" e-mail technique would work, so I *did* go out of my way to avoid bloggers who might actually recognize me and link me as a personal favor, thus no Blackfive, IMAO, or Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Here's what happened:

Protein Wisdom - Replied promptly, saying he *does* read e-mails and responds if he has time.

AMERICAblog - Prompt reply, and I found one passage particularly enlightening as to why high-traffic blogs sometimes seem to be a closed society "I usually rely on emails from my readers for suggestions for links. And, big surprise, they usually send me links from the top blogs."

For some reason, I'd failed to consider that blogless readers send links, too, but I can certainly see how 10 e-mails that say "Look what Kos posted!" might carry more weight than a single "please link me".

VodkaPundit - Prompt reply AND a Vodkalanche! WHOO-HOO! Anyway, Stephen falls into the "don't have time to read it all, or respond to it, but I try" category. So it would appear that one key to getting your e-mail read is a subject line that's intriguing, yet doesn't sound like spam.

Right Wing News - Linked the same day. Also, he did what I had hoped - used the opportunity to share his own thoughts on e-mailing & site traffic in a thoughtful post. This is about as good as it gets when you send a link. Also, check his comments section for some good discussion.

UPDATE 4-14-06 7PM:
Outside the Beltway - linked the same day, and took the opportunity to add his own thoughts about how to get noticed. #4 surprised me a bit:

4. Make it easy. Give the blogger a two or three sentence–max–summary of the post if it’s long. Include a link to the post. Include the entire text of the post. Unless they are regular readers of your site and you have some sort of relationship, simply sending along a link to the post with the expectation that they will click through is not a great idea.

My initial thought was that including the full text would make the e-mail longer and thus less likely to be read. However, James is right. Saving your target reader the click and the wait for the page-load errs on the side of convenience. My suggestion is to put the text at the very end of the e-mail, AFTER the summary, the link, and (optionally) why you think the high-traffic blogger might be interested in the post.

(Note on the update: the trackback from OTB didn't work, and I didn't check to see if he'd posted on it. I apologize for the oversight)

Hugh Hewitt - Linked the same day, however I noticed that he also gave a Hat Tip to Right Wing News. Which makes me wonder whether he was planning to link me before he read the RWN piece, or if the fact that RWN blogged about it made him to decide not to dump my e-mail into his bozo bin. Either way, I'm happy. But this also makes me wonder what the "tipping point" is. How many high-traffic bloggers have to link a post before they all feel compelled to do it so that they don't miss out on a "hot topic"? Ah... the mysteries of interpersonal influence...

I'll also mention that although Hugh didn't reply to my initial e-mail, he DID reply to my "thank you" e-mail that I sent after he linked me.

Wonkette - Linked same day, later in the evening, and mentioned that if a high-traffic blogger isn't responding to your e-mail, it may be because you got caught in their spam filter. Lesson learned - don't brag about how your were born in Nigeria.

Seriously, though, you know what spam e-mails look like, so avoid ALL CAPS, excessive linkage, exclamation points!!!, and other filter triggers.

QandO - Responded after about 24 hours. He brought up an excellent point about why some of the more content-oriented blogs (rather than link-oriented) might not be quick to jump on your link: "I rarely link emailed stuff, simply because of my own blogging habits. I tend to write about subjects that I've been thinking about, or about which I have something unique to say. I don't really consider myself a "linker". So, unfortunately, while it's nice for me to get emailed links, I'm probably not terribly helpful to the people who send them. Usually, anyway."

I have to agree - if I can't find a fresh angle on a story, I may not post on a link I've been sent. I mean, if I can't manage to do more than echo the A-listers' opinions, I probably can't muster the enthusiasm to whip up a post on the topic - which is why I don't do a whole lot of blogging on the big headline news stories of the day.

Winds of Change - Linked after about 44 hours. Mentions the Right Wing News piece, mostly for RWN's great money quote of "Getting links isn't about a "Good Old Boy's Club," it's about the numbers game."

Here's something to consider. Right Wing News wrote a better post than I did (I'm being honest, not modest), but I still got a link and praise in the WoC piece. When it comes to crediting sources, I usually only mention the place I got the info from. I almost never cite "the source of the source". I wonder if WoC would've linked me (source of the source) had he not also gotten the e-mail?... again - the mysteries of influence.

UPDATE 4-13-06 5PM: Joe of WoC was kind enough to leave an explanation in the comments, and also points out that linking the source of the source helps improve the shelf life of your post should one of the source links eventually become broken.

The Jawa Report - First, my condolences to Rusty Shackleford on the recent loss of his friend. I would like to give him credit for setting his contact e-mail to autorespond, so I heard about this within minutes of sending my initial e-mail. To his further credit, he responded personally at about the 48 hour mark, to let me know that he's a "reads all, responds to some" kinda guy.

The Real Ugly American - Not one of the initial e-mail targets, but he posted within 12 hours as a secondary effect of the links by Right Wing News and Hugh Hewitt, and added his own thoughts to expand my "how to e-mail high-traffic bloggers" advice to make it inclusive of ALL bloggers.

Daily Kos
Pink Is The New Blog
Michelle Malkin
Eschaton
Go Fug Yourself
Crooks and Liars
A Socialite's Life
Little Green Footballs
Powerline
The Dilbert Blog
NRO: The Corner
Lileks
Roger L. Simon
Captain's Quarters
Outside the Beltway
Ace of Spades
This Modern World
Belmont Club
Althouse

E-MAILING BIG BLOGGERS - BRIEF UPDATE

By 10am yesterday, I'd sent out 30 e-mails regarding this post.

So far, I've gotten 4 links plus 3 replies.

I plan to wait about a week and then file a final report on who did & said what.

In other news, you KNOW you're having a good blogging day when you can barely detect a VERY enthusiastic link from Matty O'Blackfive amidst all the referrals from Vodkapundit, Right Wing News, Hugh Hewitt, and Wonkette.

Geez... look at this... I'm dropping names like Matty at a blogmeet now...

ON THE POSSIBLE CLOSING OF THE CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES

Zeuswood of Harshly Mellow is getting a little burnt out from being the moderator for Carnival of the Vanities and is thinking about just ending it.

Zeuswood - the question of whether your co-ordination of the COTV is worth your effort is something that only you can decide, and I won't criticize if you call it quits. I abandoned a carnival of my own after 10 editions. Maintaining one is a LOT of work.

However, the question of whether the COTV still has a place in a blogosphere which currently boasts over 250 active Carnivals is another matter.

And I'd say - yes, the COTV *is* still relevant.

Why? Because unlike the myriad of "themed" carnivals out there, the COTV has NO theme. It's an eclectic smorgasbord of literary tidbits.

Or a box of chocolates, if you want to be Gump about it.

Either way, its themelessness IS its attraction. Some people don't WANT to know that all 50 posts are going to be on the same topic. They want the excitement of unwrapping the box to behold the shiny present inside.

Or possibly the dead puppy (NOTE TO SELF: airholes!)

So although the COTV may wax or wane in popularity during any given week, it's still as wrong to say that it's "lost in the crowd" as it is to say that "Tiffany's is just a drop in an ocean of jewelry stores".

The Carnival of the Vanities is a beautiful thing. I discovered many of my now-favorite bloggers by exploring its enchanting links. To let it go... to let it die... a tragedy.

Anyone who would like to take up the moderator's mantle for the COTV, please fully inform yourself of what you're getting into, then drop a comment at Harshly Mellow.

HOW TO GET A LINK FROM A HIGH-TRAFFIC BLOGGER

Recently I got an e-mail from Doll of Freedom Watch, who noted that it seems nigh-impossible to get a link from high-traffic bloggers unless you, yourself, are a high-traffic blogger - or at least a member of Pajamas Media.

Now, I haven't tried hitting up any BlogTitans for linkage for quite a while, so I don't know how true that is these days. However, I *do* have my own theories on how to go about doing so, which I quote from the original post:

Suggested format - Apologize for the unsolicited e-mail, acknowledge that you know [BIG BLOGGER] is very busy, briefly tell why you think this post might be of interest to him, give the URL, thank him for his time, sign your name. END

In the next few days, I'm going to conduct an experiment to see how well this actually works. I'll file a report afterwards.

Meanwhile, although I'm only a B-list blogger myself, there are still bloggers with even LESS traffic who occasionally feel the urge to ask me to link something. If you're on my blogroll or you're at least a semi-regular commenter, I'll likely jump at the chance.

If you're a lurker or just a passing Googler, you'll have to gain my confidence first.

Now in my case, you can skip the apology and the "I know you're busy" bit and just start off with:

BLATANT EGO FLATTERY - Say something nice about a recent post. You don't have to lay it on TOO thick, but at least make a passing reference to something on the front page so that I know you took the trouble to at least GLANCE at my writing. If there's nothing in the e-mail to show that it's aimed specifically at me, I'm just going to assume it's spam and delete it.

After that, just follow the standard "begging for linkage" format outlined above.

Also, if you blog under a pseudonym and your e-mail address has your real name, please include a link to your blog's URL so I can figure out who you are. My tarot cards are out getting re-laminated, so my psychic powers are a little ephemeral at the moment ;-)

But DO feel free to e-mail. I don't get around to every blog as often as I'd like, and good blog-fodder is always appreciated.

Just ask Doll.

KEEPING AN OPEN MIND

I don't do "link exchanges". I blog because I like reading other blogs, and I'm not obsessed with traffic.

Not that I'll turn it down, mind you, it's just that I've risen to my Peter-Principle-approved level of incompetence in the blogosphere, and I'm fairly content to rest on my laurels.

So when I got an e-mail asking me to exchange a link with the NY Hotties blog, I was dubious, at best. My first assumption being "Yay. Another porn site trolling for traffic. Where's that delete button?"

But... the first part of the e-mail intrigued me "I was browsing through blogs when I came across Bad Example, and I think it's fabulous! I love your love notes. Your wife is a very lucky woman."

Whether Alexa was sincere, or even if it WAS spam, at least she obviously took the time to read my site before contacting me. The e-mail wasn't generic. So I figured the least I could do was return the favor with a visit.

Not the best first impression. The site had loading issues, and the headers & sidebar have an air of "corporate soft core" about them. Nevertheless, I browsed the front page. Hard to get a good feel for the site that way, because she makes the mistake of using extended entries for text, which I'm against. Especially when the extensions open in a new page on a site that has issues with slow load times.

Still... I checked the archives - she's been doing this for over a year & a half. A good indicator that the e-mail wasn't just about getting traffic.

Anyway, I browsed the first few months. Turns out that - while there's plenty of the purely prurient - there's also a good mix of personal observations & commentary. It's not just about the smut.

What really intrigued me as I read, though, was that she has a full command of the English language. She's smart. She can write. Her vocabulary, spelling & grammar are high end.

But there are two posts that convinced me that this site is actually worthwhile. First, although she's not fond of Bush or Republicans, she's not a raving loon about the topic, and is willing to believe her own eyes rather than what she's told. She discussed the CBS Memo Fiasco as follows:

Although it sucks that the memos are fake, the amazing thing is that the blogging community completely outdid the media establishment on this one. Apparently, bloggers proved within a day that the memos are fake. I’m so proud of my fellow bloggers. :)

Check out this post on Little Green Footballs. The author compares the "original" memo to a version that he typed on Microsoft Word. The similarities are striking. In fact, the memos are identical.

These memos are going to be a complete disaster for the Kerry campaign.

Interestingly, the comments on the post were generally civil, sane, well-written, and on-topic. Apparently her audience is fairly high-end, too.

But enough about politics. Recently she made an intriguing observation on the Olympics, on the difference between the way the Canadian media treated a bronze medal winner and the way the US Media treated a silver:

And I remember watching a whole news story about an athlete from Canada that had won one of the events.

By 'won' I mean he got a bronze.

You wouldn’t ever have guessed that from the story though. It was reverential, awed, and respectful. The guy, at least in the producers' eye, was a hero.

[snip]

I tell you all of this because I’ve been thinking about Sasha Cohen. Who won a silver medal in Women’s Figure Skating on Thursday.

Oh. You may not know that. You may only know that she fell. And fell again. The media likes to show it over and over and again.

Message? Sasha Cohen’s a loser. She’s soft. She [f***ed] up.

How very un-American of her.

Forget that Sasha was the most beautiful, most glorious skater/ballerina to take the ice in a long time. Forget that she fell, got up, and pulled herself together completely, enough to earn a place on the podium. Isn’t that a perfect ending in itself—at least one to a commercial movie?

Over and over I watched American commentators approach our loser athletes who won silvers and bronzes and ask them minutes after their race, "WHAT WENT WRONG."

So... I'll give her a spot on the 'roll, because the writing is good.

Which is NOT the same as a link exchange.

Which I still don't do.

So don't even ask.

ON STARTING BLOGGING - EVERYONE SUCKS AT FIRST

Blogdaughter Boudicca's real-life sister Morrigan gives a reason that she can't blog:

As far as blogging goes, I am just not a writer. I wish I were, I really do because I have ridiculous things happen to me. I did meet some great people in Tennessee and hopefully I'll tag along again. I will continue my skulking about the blogosphere envious of all the talented writers.

She just strung four coherant sentences together into a paragraph, and - in the process - effortlessly incorporated two metaphors: "tag along" and "skulking about the blogosphere".

I've written plenty of posts where I didn't even manage that.

Mo... seriously... if you can leave a comment, you can blog. I hate to drag out the big guns, but here it goes:

My first month as a blogger.

Notice how most of my posts are basically just comments on other people's posts. Nary an original thought to be found. Just proving my point: if you can leave a comment, you can blog.

"But my writing sucks!"... Well, EVERYONE sucks when they start out.

Everyone.

Here's Instapundit's first post:

Well, it looks like the Department of Justice is finally going after the music industry for antitrust violations. Expect more of this kind of thing in the future, and not just with regard to the music sector, but with regard to all entertainment industries. Here's how it shakes out from the Bush Administration's viewpoint: First, the entertainment industry genuinely breaks the law: there's lots of payola and other anticompetitive practices, as extensively documented in Salon over the past several months. Second, it's unpopular with two groups of voters Bush needs: old people, who don't like its products, and young people, who don't like the industry because of its stands over things like Napster, DVDs, and so on. Third, it gives lots of money to Democrats, and its leaders spend a lot of time bashing Bush.

The question is, how sophisticated will the Bush administration's assault be? With care, the administration could launch an assault that would split artists from studios and labels, further dividing and demoralizing a major source of Democratic support -- and maybe even splitting off some people who will decide they like the Republicans after all. Is Bush that smart? Is Ashcroft? Is Karl Rove? Stay tuned.

Boringest thing I ever read in my life. That's how HE started. Now he's on top of the world.

Then there's Frank J. of IMAO, who writes DAMN funny original content, now that he has about 3000 posts under his belt. But look at this post from his first day of blogging:

The U.S. Army is now making computer games for free download. The military was always the only part of the federal government I didn't mind my tax money going to because they kill evil foreigners, but now I get video games out of the deal. Kick ass!

Two sentences of commentary on a news story. That's it. Now he gets 8000 hits a day and he's got two books in the works.

Oh, and the great Straight White Eric? Here's his day one (his blog sucked so bad the permalinks didn't even work. You have to scroll to the bottom of the page for this):

ok..ok...ok.....so, I set up a brand spanking new blog, and the FIRST thing the wife says is..."that is crap, you need a new title for it..".....SHEEESH!!....some people just CAN'T be satisfied....oh well..the debate is still out...maybe she's right...but do you think that I'D admit she is?...hmmm...just have to wait and see, I suppose....anyway, I'm off in search of a great Robert Service poem to post on here...stay tuned...for those of you who don't know of Mr. Service's work, lets just say this...he was in the Yukon WAY before Goretex was invented...enough said...

There isn't even a LINK in that post.

So here's the truth about blogging - everyone's got 10 sucky posts inside of them. Underneath them are brilliant shiny diamonds of breathtaking literature. But the ONLY way to get at the diamonds is to start shoveling out the suck. You HAVE to be willing to be really bad before you can be any good.

Put the pride aside, play the fool for a bit, and let yourself become something more beautiful than you can currently imagine. Every rose that one day turns its face to the sunshine started as a seed laying face down in the dirt.

Let yourself blossom.

TRYING TO CONCEIVE

Blogdaughter Boudicca of Boudicca's Voice points out that her real-life sister Morrigan had a birthday recently (Happy Birthday, Mo), and, in the comments, Pam of Pamibe said what everyone is thinking:

Let me get this straight... her life is blog fodder 24/7 but she has NO BLOG? Why not?

I don't like to be negative, so I'll look at reasons why you, Morrigan, SHOULD have a blog:

1) You already have a cool pseudonym, so you just need to add an "'s" then pick a noun, and there's your blog name. I'm not up enough on Celtic mythology to know what that noun should be, but I'll bet that either you or Boudicca are.

2) If you read this post and decide to start blogging because of it, then I'll be your blogfather. Which means that your sister Bou will also be your blogsister. How cool would THAT be? Cooler than having her for your blogmother, THAT'S for sure.

3) Blogger is free - www.blogger.com - you can be posting stuff in 5 minutes. Decorating your site to make it pretty and/or functional takes a little longer, but you can do that as you go along. I've known people who had their "edit me" links on their sidebars for WEEKS. Believe me, your blogroll is the least important thing about your site.

4) "I don't have anything to blog about!"... You send e-mails, right? Pretty much anything you would e-mail to someone "because it's really cool" would make a good blog post. Then you'd be able to just post it and have people come read it instead of trying to find everyone's e-mail address.

5) "Who would want to read my boring crap?"... Definitely everyone who met you in Tennessee. Probably some of your family. Possibly a few of your friends. None of your co-workers. Strange but true. Your readership will NOT consist of who you think it will. But that doesn't matter, because the people who will visit your site will be cool people who really like you that you'd NEVER get to know otherwise. There's an audience for EVERY writer. I think it's time you let yours find you.

Drop me a line at harvolson-at-gmail.com.

We'll talk.

BLOG LOVE

Blogson Blue Tige pops the question:

Most of us are familiar with blog parents, blog grandparents, blog brothers and sisters, maybe even blog aunts and uncles. Those things are easy to figure out. What my question is, is what is YOUR input on blog relationships, blog dating, blog husbands and wives, blog flirting? Pick any or all and let me know what you consider to be right/wrong, good/bad, does/don'ts.

Some interesting discussion in his comments.

And he brings up a particular point during that discussion:

My realm for the question is only online. Not wanting to bring the idea of real life meetings into the picture. For instance do people or can people blog statements about so and so being my blog girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.

The important point with blog flirting (as with ANY flirting) is to keep it clear that it's a tease, and not a pass.

Good ways to maintain the clarity:

1) Be happily married and post love notes to your wife on a daily basis. Or at least regularly mention how happy she makes you. 75% of your flirting should be aimed at your significant other, then feel free to scatter the other 25% around as you see fit.

2) I've never heard the term blog boyfriend/girlfriend used. I think the terms have too much real-world weight to be useful for light flirting. Better to use less serious-sounding phrases. For example, I've seen the term "blog-crush". This sounds pretty 4th grade, so not much harm there. You can also take it in the opposite direction and use "love-slave in my blog-harem", which is so unrealistically over-the-top as to prevent anyone from taking it too seriously.

3) Using emoticons - like :-) or ;-) - after a flirtatious statement goes a long way toward preventing your intentions from being misinterpreted.

Aside from that, it's a matter of knowing your audience. Don't flirt with someone until you've read their blog long enough to understand their personality and sense of humor, then exercise the principles from point #2: be either cutely juvenile or blatantly exaggerated.

And always, ALWAYS remember point #1 - devote most of your energy towards flattering the one who wears the ring that matches yours.

IMAGE COMPRESSION SOFTWARE?

Can anyone recommend any good free software for image compression?

Currently, I usually use Photo Crunch. It's a small, intuitive piece of software that does only one thing - compress images - and does it well. I love the live preview feature so you can tell what your image will look like and what size it will be BEFORE you do something irreversible. The only downside is that it's $8.

It's WORTH it, especially if you tend to post pictures every day like I do, but still...

Anyway, I know that Irfanview is free, and you CAN use it to compress images, but it doesn't have a live preview feature. You just have to guess how far to compress the image, then check it afterwards. Useable, but not user friendly (on THAT feature, anyway. It's great for everything else).

Any suggestions?

BAD EXAMPLE FOR PDA

Thanks to a Christmas present from Blogdaughter Michele of Letters From New York City, there's now a Lite version of Bad Example for your PDA. A link will be permanently available at the top of the left sidebar.

If there are technical issues with it, holler in the comments so I can start panicking.

Also, it's currently set to display the last 15 posts. Is that enough? Too much? Nobody cares?

[Hat tip for the magical code: Grumbles Before the Grave]

ABOUT THAT SUDDEN CHANGE IN ECOSYSTEM RANKING

NZ Bear of the Truth Laid Bear, revered keeper of the Ecosystem has been tirelessly tweaking his code lately to try to... well, I guess the short answer is to make it harder to artificially inflate your rank through the indiscriminate usage of open trackback listings.

Longer answer can be found at the Bear's "Unveiling" post and/or the updated Ecosystem FAQ.

The result is that a lot of people experienced sudden, massive shifts in Ecosystem rank. Including my own 150 position plunge and devolution back to Large Mammal. Essentially, it's a new game with a new playing field. You're starting over.

Fortunately, basic strategy remains the same. It's all about seeding good will and reaping the rewards of positive attention. The more you use links and comments to reward the good posts of other people, the more you'll grow.

The Ecosystem re-formatting was just a bump in the road. The journey continues. Just try to relax & enjoy the adventure.

BLOGGER SLANG

Blogson _Jon of We Swear suggested that I compile a list of blogging slang & acronyms for the benefit of newbies.

Trouble is, I've been at this so long, I can't remember what is and isn't tough to figure out.

So I'll start with a few that had me puzzled the first time I saw them, and y'all can chime in in the comments with other things you saw that had you scratching your head. Depending on the response & my mood, I may compile a list to be posted later.

MSM - Mainstream Media - refers collectively to big city newspapers and cable news networks, often in the context of them having a consistent political bias and the habit of overlooking important stories, e.g. any story from Iraq that doesn't include a body count.

WRT - With Regard To

WTF? - "What The F***?", or if your kids ask - "What's This For?"

AT THIS POINT, I'M JUST *TRYING* TO OFFEND PEOPLE

Graumagus of Frizzen Sparks points out that - according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office - it's offensive, immoral, and scandalous to have pride unless you're the right color.

Hope there wasn't too much white in that.

I WONDER IF THIS POST WILL GET ANY COMMENTS?

Bloggranddaughter Sissy of And What Next... muses thusly:

Isn't it funny how the quick, couple of sentence posts that you just pull out of your ass surprise you sometimes with more comments then the posts you put thought into?

Simple explanation:

With a well thought out post, you may raise responses in your readers' heads, but then you cover those points, so there's nothing left to say but "nice post", which is too lame to leave as a comment.

With a two-line throwaway, the responses aren't addressed, so your readers leave them as comments.

The less YOU say, the more you leave for your readers to say.

[submitted to the Wizbang Carnival of the Trackbacks]

*YOU* ARE THE "BLOG OF RECORD"

In the comments to my post "Finding Your Blog Voice 2: Just Try It", Lynn of Reflections in D Minor said this.

In a way, I feel like I've become a lazy blogger. I started out with the intention to write essays (at first I thought maybe one or two a week) but then I got to be driven by the need to post something new every day but also, surfing and sharing what I find is fun and people seem to like that. To get back to what I originally intended I'd have to do less surfing, more reading and thinking but I'd still sort of like to really write more often.

By the way, I like it when you post stuff like this - just your own thoughts about whatever.

Ok, that last line has nothing to do with the topic, but I included it because I like compliments.

Anyway, yeah, I'd like to do more thoughtful pieces too. They just FEEL good to write.

However, there's nothing wrong with putting up stuff that's "just a link" and has no substantive commentary.

The great thing about Lynn's "just links" is that - since I don't get over to the classy side of the 'sphere much - it's a lifeline to things that stretch my mind.

Which brings me to my point. There have been several occasions when I've seen a cool link to something at numerous of the large blogs, but I liked it so much that I posted about it anyway, even though I figured everyone else had already seen it.

People commented to thank me for posting it.

People linked to me and posted about it themselves.

The lesson here is that even if you think a topic is "everywhere" and you don't feel like you have anything to add by chiming in with your little link, go ahead & chime anyway.

Remember that for some of your readers - who surf in different circles than you - you may well be the only "everywhere" they go.

YAY! LINK-WHORING! (UPDATED 6-21-05 3:30 PM)

In an effort to help crappy blogs steal traffic from their betters, I've decided to institute a new blogroll:

WANTON LINK-WHORING

Which is WAY down in the bottom of my right sidebar.

No one will ever notice your name on it, and it will not drive any traffic to your site.

All you have to do to get on it is to leave a comment to this post that says "I'm a link whore" and include your blog's URL (either in the "personal information" box or in the body of the comment).

You don't have to blogroll me, you don't have to link me, you don't even have to know my name. Just leave the comment.

I do reserve the right to exclude porn sites that don't turn me on, though.

And feel free to let Puppy Blender know that he finally has a shot at getting blogrolled here.

UPDATE (6-21-05 3:30PM): As link-ho Boudicca of Boudicca's Voice mentioned in the comments, this makes me a link-pimp. I'm thinkin' I needs me a fancy-ass hat:

THE ALLIANCE OF FREE BLOGS: LINK-WHORE OR COMMUNITY SERVANT?

In his post on the evils of link-whoring, the editor of Sobriquet Magazine had several colorful descriptions of the Alliance:

"The most blatant display of wanton link doping is The Alliance of Free Blogs"

"a nerdy joke"

"The Alliance of Free Blogs essentially amounts to the flogging of the vestigial detritus left long after the desiccated horse of a joke had begun stinking up the internet."

All of which are true. The Alliance is based on a joke that, in and of itself, stopped being funny a long time ago. After nearly two years, it's descended past the point of self-parody and into the realm of "pop-culture reference" - rather like the humor value of quoting Monty Python.

However, he also made an observation that I have to take some exception to:

"[an] idiotically haphazard [collection] of people who merely want to rank higher on The Truth Laid Bear's ecosystem"

To the untrained eye, this may appear so, but the fact is that the Alliance IS a community, and it DOES have a common trait:

Every member of the Alliance thinks it's fun - and sometimes even funny - to poke good-natured fun at Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.

I'd like to point out here that - although he's not a member - this includes Glenn Reynolds himself, who recently made a self-deprecating reference to his status as "puppy-blender" during an interview on national television (at about the 5:22 mark in the video).

Now, I will grant that - from time to time - people will attempt to join the Alliance strictly for its link-whoring value. They'll post their quote, link and banner, get on the blogroll, then take them down. But we do check up on people now and then, and people who don't fulfill membership requirements DO get purged. Charming Alliance HQ Hostess Susie of Practical Penumbra is merciless on that issue, and rightly so. We don't ask much, and if you aren't willing to do those few simple things, get lost.

There's another point that he did NOT criticize us for (so don't go flaming him on this), but which needs addressing.

The Alliance DOES do good works in the blogging community.

First the assignments and round-ups. Comedy writing is hard, and even if you think you're funny, it can be intimidating to just up and start cracking wise. The two assignments posted at Alliance HQ each week give folks with a sense of humor an excuse to come out of their shell and try something new. Our "will be linked regardless of quality" policy takes some of the pressure off, and bloggers can feel free to experiment with different techniques, not worrying whether any given piece of material is "good enough". It's like a twice-weekly open-mike night, except without the booing.

Second, the Linky Stuff posts - Blog Carnivals are good ways for bloggers to get attention, but sometimes it's hard to find out beforehand where to submit your entries. That's why we actively track some of the larger ones, and place great emphasis on Ferdy's All-Purpose Carnival Submission Form, which makes it insanely easy to submit entries to them, as well as dozens more that Alliance HQ doesn't track.

The last thing I'd like to say about the Alliance is that, although it's currently the wantonest link-whore in the blogosphere, it didn't start out that way, and it took a HELL of a lot of work to get it there.

Alliance HQ has at least 7 new posts every week, and has for nearly 2 years. This sort of consistency is hard to find on blogs whose authors write nowhere else. At HQ, it borders on the miraculous, since GEBIV, Susie & I each have at least one "day job" blog, too.

However, the regularly-updated content is only half the story. The REAL power behind the throne is Charming Alliance HQ Hostess Susie. She's the one who maintains the template, updates the blogroll, processes the new applications, and purges non-compliant members. All the while maintaining her own blog, getting her Masters degree and - something she never mentions, so *I* will - paying for hosting the Alliance HQ site OUT OF HER OWN POCKET.

Which reminds me... I need to go buy her an Amazon virtual beer to thank her... 'scuse me a second...

... there... that's better.

Anyway, the Alliance of Free Blogs is here to serve you, the blogging community, and we're proud to help in any way we can. If nothing else, we hope that'll you'll at least be entertained by the silliness of it all.

So, as I say in the Alliance Backstory post:

"Enjoy the spectacle"

INSTAPUNDO DELENDA EST!

IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET IT

The latest Filthy Lie Assignment at Alliance HQ led to this observation at The Blog Herald:

Bizarrely though, the best the Alliance of Free Blogs could respond with is that their method of cross linking is somehow better then that of Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame, who apparently commits the crime of linking at random.

It just boggles my mind when people don't pick up on humor when they read something "bizarre".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I make it fairly clear with this line?:

I mean LOOK at his blogroll! Ann Althouse, La Shawn Barber, N.Z. Bear, Dean Esmay, James Lileks... it's like a "Who's Who" of "Who The Hell Is THAT?" Have YOU ever heard of any of these nobodies?

If pretending not to know the biggest names in the blogosphere isn't a giveaway, I'm not really sure what is.

The other amusing part is the way they choose to frame the whole link-whoring discussion:

Link Doping debate places Blogcritics against Republican bloggers

An interesting debate on the value of building links between like minded blogs has emerged with a scathing piece appearing on Blogcritics.org attacking the Alliance of Free Blogs, a right wing link network which targets the Truth Laid Bears blogging ecosystem.
[snip]
Whilst the battle perhaps appears to be nothing more than a minor partisan stoush[...]

Idiots.

The guy who wrote the piece for Blogcritics didn't "attack", he criticized. And given his level of knowledge at the time he wrote the piece (since upgraded), it was a relatively reasonable piece of criticism.

He also took the time to figure out that the Alliance is an exercise in satire and not meant to be taken seriously, as he clearly mentioned in his article.

Finally, the editor of Sobriquet Magazine did NOT pick on the Alliance of Free Blogs for political reasons. He did it because it's the largest, most high-profile, blog-community in the Ecosystem and we best exemplified the points he was trying to make.

Anyway, he does a commendable job of bringing these partisan hacks up to speed in their comments. Go ahead & take a look.

WHY LINK-WHORING MAY NOT BE HARMFUL AT ALL

Susie of Practical Penumbra has a VERY passionate essay on the value of link-whoring and the value of the Alliance of Free Blogs.

Fiery women are SUCH a turn on :-)

Anyway, in the comments, the editor of Sobriquet (who's been quite reasonable throughout this debate - I'm starting to like this guy) mentions two things in Susie's comments (which he also discusses at his own site, Sobriquet Magazine) that I'd like to address.

First:

"gratuitous linking can bring attention to a lousy website that might otherwise find a really good site"

When I'm Googling for something - especially something obscure - I usually check out several lousy sites before I find what I'm looking for.

However, I keep going until I *do* find it.

I've never gone to a lousy web site, found nothing, then quit looking.

The quest for good reading may often be delayed, but I don't think it's ever denied.

Second:

Plus, several search engines do rely rather heavily on pure linkage to rank websites in response to a search string. This is really where I feel over-linking can harm the chance of a good, but relatively unlinked resource catching someone's eye.

Turns out that isn't true, at least for Google.

From Gerard of American Digest, I found this article on how Google treats links (it's fairly obscure, so I'm not surprised he didn't know about it. I just found it myself):

As well as the number, quality and anchor text factors of a link. Google seems to also consider historical factors. Apparently the Google 'sandbox' or aging delay begins count down the minute links to a new site are discovered.

Google records the discovery of a link, link changes over time, the speed at which a site gains links and the link life span.

With this in mind, fast link acquisition may be a strong indicator of potential search engine Spam.

Gone are the days of pages and pages full of links. You must grow your links slowly to stay below the radar and be careful who you exchange links with. That means no more buying hundreds of links at once or other underhand tactics.

So, your sudden addition of a couple hundred links from joining the Alliance won't actually boost your Google ranking.

Which means that Google thinks he was right. Trying to inflate your link count by link-whoring is a BAD thing, and must be dealt with.

Which they do.

Which means that he can now relax because the problem's being addressed, and he can concentrate on writing quality blog-posts instead.

It also means that he doesn't have to feel guilty if he decides to join the Alliance now ;-)

LINK-WHORING: CAN SITE TRAFFIC BE STOLEN?

The guy who posted the piece on link-whoring at Blogcritics that I looked at last night is doing a follow-up at his own blog, Sobriquet Magazine.

It contains three phrases I want to examine more closely. I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not clear on a few things:

1) "link doping really does propigate negative stereotypes of bloggers and blogging."

Could you please specify what these stereotypes are?

2) "a particularly virilant strain of link whoring/link doping that threatens to add more roadblocks for bloggers who don't think that "[b]logging is a hobby of pure ego.""

What are these roadblocks?

3) "I [wouldn't] want to inflate my site's popularity at the expense of someone else's"

So what you're saying is that a bad blog being on a lot of blogrolls reduces links to good blogs? Or reduces traffic to good blogs? Both?

I guess I'm having trouble with the whole "that crappy blog is stealing my link/traffic" argument. I don't look at links/traffic as something that can be stolen. If I'm not getting links/traffic, it's because I haven't earned them, and it's up to me to put forth the effort to do that. It's nobody's fault but mine.

Currently I think this is the premise over which we're butting heads.

Now, I'll freely admit that I occasionally feel a stab of jealously when I see lavish attention being paid to another blog, especially if I don't like their writing, or them personally. The Huffington "buying my way to #70 in the Ecosystem" Post springs to mind. However, when I choke back the bile and think about it, I have to grudgingly admit that such blogs DO do better (or at least more) than me in the quality/frequency/consistency of their posts. Or I at least have to admit that - for whatever reason - more people find that other blog more informative/entertaining than mine.

It's not Arianna's fault that nobody's heard of Bad Example. It's mine. If I don't like it, I need to stop criticizing her blog and work harder on my own.

Unless, of course, I think I can get some mileage out of kicking her around a little.

Heh. Two birds. One stone. ;-)

So, whaddya guys think? Can a crappy blogger steal your links & traffic by link-whoring?

LINK WHORING ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD THING

One of the contributors at Blogcritics.org posted a thoughtful an intriguing piece on link-whoring (he used the term "link-doping" because he wasn't familiar with the more common terminology) in which he concludes that the practice causes "many weblogs deserving [a high] level of attention [to] languish unread because no one can find them."

I must respectfully disagree.

I believe his central argument rests on over-emphasizing the importance of Ecosystem ranking to a blog's success. I just don't think it's as vital as he makes it out to be.

The truth is that out of some 10 million blogs in existence, fewer than 30,000 of those blogs (as of this writing) are actively tracked by the Ecosystem. The vast majority of blogs get along just fine without it.

However, I will grant that 30,000 is still a big number, and one's Ecosystem ranking may be a statistically significant sampling upon which to judge a blog's popularity. Heck, most Media polls only survey 1000 people or so.

And I will also grant him his point that - by being listed on a non-community-oriented blogroll - it IS possible to gain a higher Ecosystem ranking faster than by getting blogrolled one site at a time. He's also correct to note that such "status inflation" has the effect of making other blogroll links less valuable over time because the presence of crappy blogs on these blogrolls reduces their perceived quality in general terms.

However I don't think this will cause "some really good blogs to fade away", because - in the long term - Ecosystem status is irrelevant to the success of a blog.

What makes a blog "good" is a combination of posting quality and posting frequency. The top blogs (by ANY method of ranking, not just the Ecosystem) all contain good stuff. Either brilliant orginal content (like *ahem* IMAO) or a large collection of links to brilliant orginal content (like the Puppy Blender). It's possible to mix & match a bit, but the majority of the super-heavyweights specialize.

Top blogs also update at least daily, although a scarcity of posts can be overcome to some degree by quality (like USS Clueless). But for the most part, if you don't post well and often, you may whore your way to the top, but you won't stay there.

It's also questionable just how "top" you can get via blogroll-link-whoring. Take, for example, The Alliance of Free Blogs. There are no quality restrictions, and - for the price of a little sidebar space and personal embarrassment - you can get a serious pile of links. Assuming one from every member (which fails on the high side, since "blogrolling the membership" isn't a requirement, and not all members do it), you could get 378 links. However, by itself, this would only get you "Large Mammal" status and a rank of about #500. Although that sounds impressive, keep in mind that you have to reach Playful Primate or better (top 100) in order to be on the Ecosystem's front page.

Let's be honest. Unless you're on that front page, your Ecosystem status isn't going to help you much. Nobody surfs off the Large Mammal list. In fact, if you're not a Primate or higher, you've got a better chance of getting traffic from the Ecosystem if you're an Insignificant Microbe, because sometimes bigger bloggers go slumming (just ask Flaming Duck about how that can happen).

Not that it matters, because - as I said - Ecosystem status is irrelevant.

Why?

Because the thing that REALLY drives traffic isn't cold sidebar-blogroll-links, it's the warm, enthusiastic links that occur within blog posts, and Ecosystem status is irrelevant to how those sorts of links are obtained.

Warm links are entirely an effect of how a given blogger markets himself. I have a detailed discussion of those techniques in my "Fighting Invisibility" post for those who are curious.

My point being that long-term success in the blogsphere is the result of each individual's own hard work, consistency, and effort. Eventually you get what you deserve.

I'd like to close by saying that I believe that link-whoring is, after a fashion, a good thing for those who indulge in it and who have the quality content to back it up. Even though bloggers are rarely in it for the money, success is still heavily dependent on advertising, just as it is in the business world. There are two basic strategies:

1) Warm word of mouth - getting enthusiastic links inside other bloggers' posts

2) Cold mass-marketing - making your name visible in as many places as possible in order to build name recognition

The first way gives you fewer links, but more chance of the link getting clicked. The second plays the numbers game. Both strategies are viable, and both strategies work if pursued consistently. Do keep in mind though, that cold mass-marketing is the strategy of spammers & porn sites, so there's a certain amount of "guilt by association" to consider.

In the end, though, your quest for links & site traffic is a one-man show, and you're in complete control of it. If you take the energy you currently devote to envying the success of others (*shakes fist at filthy link-whore Arianna Huffington*) and pour it into improving the quality of your site, you will succeed as a blogger no matter WHERE you are in the Ecosystem.

DID *I* DO THAT?

Blogdaughter Michele of Letters From New York City has two very intense, very personal posts that everyone with a blog needs to read. I'll give a strong hanky alert to both. If you read either without misting up, seek professional help.

They're stories of personal pain, and tragedy, but they're also about the love and hope that pulled her through to the other side. They're stirring, and moving, and in the end, it's the joy that wins out. They give me the image of a woman on a mountain top, staring at the promise of a green valley below as she turns her back on the desert she's spent years crossing.

They're also about the power of blogging to transmit the human touch.

There's been much noise about bloggers - at least in some circles - and their role in fact-checking the mainstream media, and their abilty to change the course of the political storms that sweep through America from time to time. However, there is a lesser aspect, and one that - for now - remains under the radar of the ponitificating powers that be. It is, I believe, actually the greater aspect. It's the power to make a difference, one person at a time.

What's NOT being talked about is that blogging gives you the chance to touch another person's life in tiny increments on a regular basis. No single instance is particularly huge, but the accumulation is. It's the slow, steady, emotional contacts that work a blogger's magic - like raindrops wearing down a mountain - except the effect is a creation and a building-up, rather than a deterioration.

I swear I never meant for this to happen. I started blogging for purely selfish reasons. I just wanted to see my words in print and have people say "you don't suck". It was "all about me".

Still is, actually.

I honestly don't do this - the posting, the comments, the special projects - for the sake of other people. If I had to name a motivation for the whole Bad Example Family phenomenon, I'd have to say it arose out of my sense of justice. I believe that the most important thing is not punishing the wicked, but rewarding the good - something that all too often gets left undone.

I'm a particular fan of good writing. Not just good grammar & spelling, but also the ability to write with clarity, and make a point with conviction. I'm especially giddy with joy when I can read something that is both well-done AND original. I spend my workaday existence amongst drones & parrots who mumble mere echoes of the things their betters have said. It's frankly quite wearying. So when I am blessed with even a short paragraph or two of words that I couldn't have created myself - things that catch me by surprise, or make me laugh, or make me think - I want to reward the mind that gave me such pleasure.

So I'll leave a comment. Maybe just a little "well said" or a "LOL!", but still, it lets the person know they've touched me on some level - that a connection was made, and their efforts aren't in vain.

Such a small thing, really. But - like pennies in a coffee can - it's adds up to something substantial after a while.

HOW substantial?

Ask Michele.

Just something to think about while you're waiting for those Blogger comments to load and wondering if it's worth it.

Yes... it is.

DOES IT MATTER?

Graumagus of Frizzen Sparks is mulling over his hits/links discrepancy:

Take me for example, I have "Large Mammal" status. That's pretty far up the food chain. Makes it appear that if I'm not a big dog, at least I'm not a toy poodle either.

I get a whopping 75-100 hits a day. Less lately now that I've been in Depress-O-Angst mode about my job and other shit.

Blog Daughter Boudicca gets that or more, and in spurts gets 200+ hits a day, and she's stuck at Marauding Marsupial level. I see her surpassing my hits count before summer (I'm a proud papa! heheh).I think she deserves a higher ranking than me.

If I wasn't crosslinked to so many people because of belonging to The Alliance of Free Blogs, and Blogs for Bush, we'd be swapping pouch grooming tips. If they had three or four more large blogging groups for me to join, I could probably end up somewhere near Higher Being status without getting more than half my hits from personal friends. (NOT why I joined either the Alliance or Blogs for Bush, by the way)

There's a temptation to say that "those links don't count" somehow. But in a way, they do. They show that you're at least participating out in the larger blogosphere, and not just typing at yourself. It means that, at some point, you made yourself worthy of that link, even if it's not currently driving traffic.

If nothing else, consider it as sort of a reward for seniority. You've been blogging for a long time, so the links accumulate.

Or you can think of it THIS way - yeah, you suck, but not so bad that you're being DE-linked.

Those old links are like battle-scars or tattoos. No, they're not fresh & bleeding anymore, but at one time they WERE.

You've EARNED them. Wear them proudly.

HUH. IMAGINE THAT. SOMETHING I *WON'T* BE GOING TO HELL FOR

When I started blogging I just wanted to get the ego-boost of seeing my words in print and perhaps have someone leave a comment like "you don't suck TOO bad."

Along the line, I would occasionally get commenters with obvious writing skills. I felt guilty hogging all that good reading to myself, so I'd say "DUDE! Get a blog!"

And some people listened. Mostly because it was what they wanted to do anyway, and all they needed was a little nudge.

Thus blogchildren.

Then I discovered that sometimes encouraging people to continue to blog is as important as getting them to begin. Sometimes a blogger's virtual car stalls on the highway & needs a jumpstart. I found out that some people really appreciated those "you don't suck TOO bad" comments that I'd leave.

Thus adoptees.

And thus a childless man of 38 has numerous "children" who are older than he is. Which makes for some cute inside jokes.

But then things got weird. The blogkids started getting in touch with each other. Perfect strangers. No blood relationship. In a normal world, they would never have heard of each other, never met on purpose, and never even blinked if they passed each other on the street. Never would've thought in passing "this is someone I'd like to know".

Which leaves me marvelling at the happy unintended consequences of my choice to blog in the first place. I swear I never meant to do anything good.

But who am I to argue with destiny? ;-)

THE NEW, NEW BLOG SHOWCASE

Have you started a blog in the last three months? Are you desperately searching for a way to get someone besides your goofy brother to visit your site? Or are you someone who's been blogging forever, who's looking for some fresh talent to fill that hole that Rachel Lucas left on your blogroll?

Whichever category you fall into, the answer to your problem can be found at Showcase.

If you're the new kid on the block, Showcase will post a link to your best post for a week. All you have to do is drop Simon a line at simon-at-showcase.mu.nu and you're guaranteed instant world-wide fame* See this post for details.

And if, like me, you're the grumpy old man sitting on the porch in his rocking chair with a shotgun across his lap, just go to the Showcase page any old time to find lots of gul-durned whippersnappers to shake your fist at.

You've got problems? Showcase has solutions.

*(not a guarantee)

NOTE: I meant to post this about 3 weeks ago. Apparently I never took it out of draft status :-/

ADOPTEE VS. NATURAL BORN BLOGCHILD

In the comments to a recent post, the Bartender of Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon asks a very insightful question:

What is this "adoptee" bullshit?

It's like this. My blogchildren are the formerly blogless people that I talked into blogging when they had no specific plans of doing so before making the mistake of commenting at my place (sound familiar, Bartender? :-)

Adoptees are people who already HAD blogs, but upon whom I've a had a strong, positive influence in their growth as a blogger. Not to say that they wouldn't be blogging if it weren't for me, but just that I gave a lot of encouragement, support, feedback, etc.

As Pam can probably verify, adoptees are not loved any less for not being "natural birth". Whatever it means to be a Bad Example blogchild (and the jury is still out on THAT question), the adoptees are every bit as much if not more so.

The ONLY reason I make the distinction is that I don't want to mistakenly be given credit for getting these folks to start blogging in the first place, which is what "blogchild" normally means. However, if the adoptees are freely willing to claim that I was a benevolent influence in their blogging careers, I will return the honor of such an admission with what small honor of my own that I can bestow.

Which is NOT to say that becoming an adoptee is as simple as saying "Gee, Harv, I read you every day, and now I'm a drooly, lusting, semi-middle-aged perv-o just like you". It has to be the kind of reciprocal relationship where I make a particular effort to stop by & leave comments on a regular basis (even during those dry spells when almost no one else does). Wouldn't you agree, Jeff & Tom, Joey & GEBIV?

The point is, if you're on the list of family, you're family, and you're special. If I make a distinction, it's a distinction without a difference.