Category: Weblogging

The more I read the CNN article, the more I think that every last bit of it was deliberately contrived to generate noise among weblogging users. And a quick peek at Daypop and Blogdex only supports this.

If you deconstruct it, the interview is perfectly created to push at least one buzz button within each weblogger, regardless of your interest and type of weblog.

For instance, the following words:

There’s another one that actually is way cooler, far more sophisticated and allows you to add all sorts of graphical components and do all sorts of indexing and interesting diagnostic stuff. It’s called Radio Userland.

That will guarantee a link on Scripting News.

The fact that the interview only references Pitas and Userland’s Radio is going to capture the attention, and ire, of Blogger and Movable Type users. And not referencing Blogger just doesn’t make sense — of the weblogging tools most featured in the mainstream journalism publication articles the last few weeks, Blogger tops the lists.

Also consider the reference to what weblogs are:

What a blog typically is, is a collection of links out to interesting things out on the worldwide Web. The typical format is: link, tiny bit of commentary, and then a pointer to everyone else’s commentary. Sounds very simple — in fact, sounds so simple as to be not even very interesting, but in fact it’s incredibly interesting.

The “short blog” vs. “long blog” camps are legion. Is weblogging nothing more than links to stories? Or is weblogging original writing? Or both? Whatever your camp, the above paragraph is incendiary.

Then there’s the emphasis about weblogging’s relationship with journalism:

It’s totally democratic. It’s democratic journalism … it’s journalism by the masses.

That line should grab the “weblogging is a new form of journalism” crowd. The Slashdot.com reference is also a grabber; something to hold on to as you shake the article apart.

The only thing missing to make the interview “complete”, is a reference to Google.

Add in the overuse of “cool”, the pubescent writing and speaking style — I just can’t believe that CNN would allow such inane drivel through the editorial process and on to the web.

I am left with the question: Was this a deliberate hack to generate buzz, as fodder for a more in-depth look at weblogging at a later time?

Regardless, our “one link one vote” approach to discussing the article has effectively pushed it up Daypop’s and Blogdex’s buzz sheets as one of the top weblogging stories of the day.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

In the comments attached to my previous posting on the weblogging’s influence on Google, I found the most telling line from Elaine:

So, with Googlewhacking, like lobbying, our sense of what’s ethical should prevail.

Our sense of what’s ethical? Our sense of “ethics” is ruled by bias, prejudice, bigotry, elitism, self-interest, and group membership. Our sense of ethics is flexible and to be abandoned on an event by event basis.

The inherent instability of our ethics from moment to moment is why we have laws — a method to crystallize the best of our ethical beliefs, to apply at times when our “ethical” practices morph into self-serving platitudes and behavior.

To some — not all — of the Palestinians, suicide bombings are “ethical”. To some — not all — of the Israelis, invasion of the Gaza strip because of the actions of an extremist organization that’s currently housed in Lebanon is “ethical”.

To some — not all — webloggers, bashing every Muslim country because of the actions of extremists is ethical. To some — not all — webloggers, bashing Jews because of the behavior of some extremists in Israel is ethical.

And among the so-called ethical webloggers, some have negatively categorized or labeled other webloggers based on expediency, bigotry, and other self serving needs.

I have said, and will continue to say:

Webloggers aren’t influencing decisions — they’re influencing the information that influences the decision, and that’s dangerous.

The dangers inherent with a mob mind are no less because the mind is connected via the Internet rather than gathered together in a field, rope in hand.

When weblogging fought back in defense of Operation Clambake, that was a noble act. That was a an attempt to redress a wrong by balancing the actions of one organization, the Church of Scientology, with the actions of another organization, the webloggers. And the status quo of Clambake’s appearance within the Google search results was upheld.

However, when the efforts of webloggers pushed Clambake’s rank to number one, the status quo was also changed — and not based on naturally occurring interests, but based on deliberate manipulation of the weblogger effect.

Was this ethical? Perhaps.

Perhaps in the long run, the actions of webloggers will be necessary in order to counter-act the actions of the church. The church seeks to directly influence Google results so that anti-Scientology web sites don’t show in the first few pages. The webloggers counter to ensure that at least one anti-Scientology web site shows within the first page of the results.

Both organizations are using the weaknesses of Google’s ranking algorithm to influence the flow of information.

How is this not dangerous?

Any manipulation of the flow of information — whether occurring through the censorship or manipulation of the mainstream media, through weblogging, through Google search results — is dangerous. Just because you see the manipulation as being on the side of angels, doesn’t lessen the danger.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Isn’t it special? All these publications coming out with articles about weblogging, such as the new one at CNN.

Don’t we feel precious, all these nice little pats on the head?

Why is Josh Quittner the definitive authority on weblogs, do real people use the word “cool” that much in their conversation…

…and who the fuck cares?

n case you’ve curious about the type and quality of programs at Blog U, I want to assure you that we have one of the best domestic engineering programs in the country.

For instance, one of our learned professors is considered an authority in the field of receptacle reclamation. Indeed. Why, he’s know throughout the world for his expertise.

He’s joined by others in the staff who take great pains in preparing and presenting the training material in a manner sure to inspire even the most hesitant of domestic engineer trainees.

A previous posting has outgrown its comments, so I’m continuing it here.

I said:

Webloggers aren’t influencing decisions — they’re influencing the information that influences the decision, and that’s dangerous.

When webloggers act as a cohesive group to deliberately influence the position of a link within Google’s search results, this is influencing the information, not the decision. It is not equivalent to lobbying, which is an attempt to influence a decision. And it is not reflective of the interest of the populace — its a deliberate and coordinated action.

To repeat, this is a deliberate attempt to influence the flow of the information. And this is dangerous.

Will the results that Google returns influence people? Not for larger issues that are well publicized. However, in issues of business and with less well publicized issues, this can make a difference. How much so, we don’t know — we would need Google’s usage patterns and statistics to measure this.

Should webloggers not link because of this? No, because the problem doesn’t rest with webloggers — it rests with Google. The technology behind Google’s ranking system breaks with weblogging.

A link is just that — a link. It’s a great way to connect people into a community, or to let others know about new information. However, it shouldn’t be treated as a vote.

Google needs to get smarter; the technology that links the web together needs to get smarter. And we webloggers need to stop treating Google as a favorite pet that never pisses on the carpet — especially when we’re standing in the middle a puddle.

Continued here