0

And then there were blogs.

How many people are blogging? Half a billion? Less? More?

All these people clamoring to be heard have a way for them to put their words "out there" where a billion others might see them.

But we can only pay attention to, absorb so much. After that, it's just white noise. Are we hearing any more than we did before? Is the quality any better?

Do more choices always equal better quality?

Is anything being said on the internet that was not being said among families, friends and acquaintances?

I "get" technology blogs, but personal rants leave me wondering if anything is being added to the din.

There's always a chance you'll find a gem. But do we need blogs to do that? Is technology wonderful for the sake of being available?

I have the feeling that something is missing.

High Def TV does not transmit the feeling of a still sunrise in the wilderness.

The problem with blogs is that most often there is no "exhange" taking place, the blogger is talking from within a vacuum, and most often does not respond to input (unlike a forum where you'll get pounded, and either put up or shut up.)

Conclusivity is lacking.

10
Contributors
10
Replies
12
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by vmanes
0

>>But we can only pay attention to, absorb so much. After that, it's just white noise. Are we hearing any more than we did before? Is the quality any better?

I never ever read blogs (at least not that I know of), so I don't have that problem. It seems like it would the similar to many people who have a cell phone embedded in their heads. I don't use one of those either. I can get along just grand without either of those modern marvels.

0

But we can only pay attention to, absorb so much. After that, it's just white noise. Are we hearing any more than we did before? Is the quality any better?

Hearing? Or listening? I can 'hear' when my father has his chainsaw or his weedwhacker going, for example, even when I've conciously tried to tune it out. Of course, the 'listening' part relies on individuals willing to pay attention, so you may have intended that meaning.

Do more choices always equal better quality?

Probably not. After a while, you've just got more points filling in the spaces on the curve between 'bad quality' and 'good quality' on the graph.

Is anything being said on the internet that was not being said among families, friends and acquaintances?

Probably not, but the 'net does give the advantage of a wider audience. Individuals who might never have known each other existed without it can become a form of acquainance or friend via the 'net.

I "get" technology blogs, but personal rants leave me wondering if anything is being added to the din.

The chance to vent, maybe?

There's always a chance you'll find a gem. But do we need blogs to do that? Is technology wonderful for the sake of being available?

Two questions, and I think they need to be handled separately.

1. Do we need blogs to find the gems? Technically, no. But since they add to the convenience of the individual, it becomes more likely that a single person can find those that he or she personally calls gems than if he or she had to go through the process of locating something printed; especially if the original statements were made in another part of the world.

2. Is technology wonderful for the sake of being available? I'm not quite sure I understand why you're asking the question here, but I would say that, in general, it probably isn't 'wonderful' in and of itself, but aids in 'wonderful' events elsewhere. To take a non-internet example, I'd say the technology behind some of the new prosthetic limbs I've seen on television shows within the past few months is probably not 'wonderful', but what these devices give back to those who receive them I would definately qualify as being so.

I have the feeling that something is missing.

High Def TV does not transmit the feeling of a still sunrise in the wilderness.

The problem with blogs is that most often there is no "exhange" taking place, the blogger is talking from within a vacuum, and most often does not respond to input (unlike a forum where you'll get pounded, and either put up or shut up.)

Conclusivity is lacking.

True, the unreal (however realistic) doesn't have the same impact as the real. I've most often seen this reference with the theater (live theater productions vs. film productions of the same work), but it does seem to hold elsewhere.

As to your 'no exchange' argument, I'd like to ask how much 'exchange' there was (and to an extent still is) between the 'normal' media formats and their readers/viewers. At least the 'net provides that (forum) example for us. Where were such exchanges taking place before the 'net became commonly available?

0

It depends on the blogs. I have a list of blogs that tend to be highly technical (most of them are Microsoft blogs, not coincidentally), and I pick up a lot of new information that I probably wouldn't come across otherwise. Some of the information is fun, some of it is useful, some of it is totally over my head. But it keeps me thinking about those sorts of topics.

There are certainly a lot of blogs that mainly contribute noise too. The personal ones, for instance, tend to be a lot of noise that few people care about; for those who care, it can be yet another convenience. A blog is sometimes an easier way to communicate than other media, especially when targeting several non-localized recipients.

0

And then there were blogs.

How many people are blogging? Half a billion? Less? More?

All these people clamoring to be heard have a way for them to put their words "out there" where a billion others might see them.

But we can only pay attention to, absorb so much. After that, it's just white noise. Are we hearing any more than we did before? Is the quality any better?

Do more choices always equal better quality?

Is anything being said on the internet that was not being said among families, friends and acquaintances?

I "get" technology blogs, but personal rants leave me wondering if anything is being added to the din.

There's always a chance you'll find a gem. But do we need blogs to do that? Is technology wonderful for the sake of being available?

I have the feeling that something is missing.

High Def TV does not transmit the feeling of a still sunrise in the wilderness.

The problem with blogs is that most often there is no "exhange" taking place, the blogger is talking from within a vacuum, and most often does not respond to input (unlike a forum where you'll get pounded, and either put up or shut up.)

Conclusivity is lacking.

Hah. I thought you would have liked blogs.

0

there are blogs and there are blogs. I have my own (<url snipped>) and I read mostly tech stuff there.

but in the summer of 2006, it was the bloggers who revealed that AP and reuters are forging footage taken in south Lebanon, and raised the noise that made those idiotic pictures disappear (the companies never apologized even, just fired the reporters). so there is some good to bloggers

0

Hah. I thought you would have liked blogs.

Perhaps you'd care to make your reason for thinking that apparent?

0

Blogging is one way to spread the truth and the news. I am all for it! Yeah Bloggers!

But most bloggers have no accountability, responsibility, or just plain ability.

99% of what's on the internet is noise. And blogs have made a big contribution to that noise level.

Then there's the blogs that seem to only exist to point to other blogs.

As mentioned, there are some that are properly informative, well written, useful. The content on those would have probably been published anyway, in some form.

So, just "blog off...."

Val

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.