Cheap theories on blogging
I've snooping around the blogosphere, trying to see what other blogs have that I don't, immediately noting two glaring differences.
Namely, readers and content.
I haven't really found my voice yet, and I’m somedays at a loss for content, not wanting to put up link after link of articles already bludgeoned to death by the heavy hitters who by the very act of linking can crush a server like a soda can.
Sooooo… My little impromptu research has yielded the following-
Rob’s cheap theories on blogging-
1) Anyone is interesting when studied close enough.
I’ve found a few blogs who interest me because they don't really have a theme. They are literally journals of ordinary people living ordinary lives- Who happen to write well. The very act of writing about mundane things in an interesting way has a way of sucking me in just to see what happens next.
2) There appears to be a new phenomenon- “Blog-Groupies”
Some blogs have become a de-facto homeless shelter for would-be bloggers who write mini-epics in the comments, or blatant plugs for their own blogs. Others still are full of sycophants sucking up to the host- Blog-groupies, if you will. (Sorry- no links to egregious comment-whoring)
3) Buckshot vs. Sniper round.
There are those who post three or four quick blurbs per day about nothing much as opposed to a single well-aimed post with substance every few days. (I prefer substance, but I often fall short.)
4) Link-a-palooza in the sidebar.
Blogrolls are getting out of control. There’s a few who have sidebars so long it would take days to visit all their "closest" blog- buddies, most of whom have never been read more than once by the host blogger. I have a very select few in my sidebar, for various reasons but mostly because I read them daily. Blogrolls are blatant link-whoring, and it’s certainly a forgivable infraction, but Jeez… Enough already.
That's the short list- I do hereby promise to become guilty of all the above at one time or another.