This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of Talk:Blog before Feb 2006.

Would someone else confirm that Stevie is dead wrong about weblogs being web applications? There are lots of web applications for creating weblogs, but it's like saying a book is a printing press. -- robotwisdom 02:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"pitas" redirects to an irrelevant wiki.

No, it's like saying a book is a form of printed document. Show me a weblog that's not produced by a web application. And I'm sorry, just manually throwing up log entries on a web page doesn't count. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

My blog has never been produced by a web app. But whether it's produced by one or not, no weblog _is_ a web application. An application is a software program, a weblog is a file. -- robotwisdom 20:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That is just not the case. Most weblog text data is stored in databases, or pulled from files, but in either case it's a web application that's handling it. A weblog is indeed a piece of software, and more specifically, a web application. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Blogs are not applications. One must use an application of some sort to create a blog, and some blogs, as noted by Stevie do dynamically produce their pages from an application, but this is not the case for most of them. All blogs created by Blogger (including all whatever.blogspot.com blogs) are themselves straight HTML files that have no tie to an application once they have been created. It is incorrect to say that a weblog is an application. -- AStanhope 23:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree again, esp. that Blogger files have no tie to an application once they have been created. That just is not true. You use Blogger to modify them, and Blogger continues to collect comments on them and handle the other standard weblog features... which by the way, only an application could handle. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work}

Stevie, here are some questions to try to diagnose your blindspot: 1) Is Microsoft Word an application, in the same sense that web applications are applications? 2) Is a document created by MS Word an application? 3) In a Wikipedia article about 'document' would you say a document is an application because it's created and maintained by an application? If not, why not? -- robotwisdom 23:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You are referring to "weblog entries", not a "weblog." A weblog is a web application that provides for entering and modifying weblog entries, providing other standard features (comments, trackback, etc.). Compare a weblog to a diary... the diary (book) compares to the weblog (application), as diary content compares to weblog content. The diary is the specialized book that provides the format for the diary content, and the weblog is the application that provides for entering/modifying weblog content. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

To specifically answer your questions, in one full swoop the answer is that weblogs are not documents... because if they were, in your thinking, you could put the weblog entries on a flat web page, then the standard weblog features would magically come into play. Of course, that isn't the case. What you would have instead is a personal web page with weblog-like content. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The first weblog has never had comments or trackbacks, it's just a flat file, maintained by (my) hand. Stevie, when people say "my blog" do you think they're talking about a web application, or the content? Since users don't own the app, why would they say "my"? Why wouldn't I have to say to, eg, Dave Winer, Can I use your blog to post some entries? -- robotwisdom 00:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because it started out hand-written, this doesn't describe what they are today. The article already has history info, right? This article must cover what weblogs are now.

Also, let's compare a weblog to a discussion board (since they are very similar)... when I say "my discussion board", I definitely do mean "my discussion board application". And owning a web application has nothing to do with it, as application also means an implementation of same. A weblog is a web application, implemented for the purpose of showing a particular blogger's weblog content. When you invite people to your weblog, you are indeed having them come to use your application implementation for displaying your entries and taking their comments! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are many web applications for maintaining weblogs. No one but you confuses these with the weblogs themselves. No one thinks 'Blogger' is a weblog-- it's the app. The current phrasing is just ignorant and misleading, and must be changed. A weblog is not in any sense an application, it's a type of webpage. -- robotwisdom 00:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

An application is both the application software and its implementation. This should be quite clear. If you have a weblog in 2005, you have an application, i.e., an implementation of application software. No? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be to the point for all coming to this topic: An application is an implementation of application software. A weblog is indeed this, as are discussion boards, wikis, chat rooms, etc. Thank you. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the general sense that 'webmail' is a web application, 'blogging' might be called another. I have a weblog, but I don't use any web app-- it's just a flat file. I don't think "An application is an implementation of application software" is meaningful or correct. -- robotwisdom 01:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that what you're doing is not a weblog, but instead a personal page with weblog-style entries. I know you'll be miffed by this idea, but I think it's accurate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Further, the definition I provide for application certainly isn't the fullest extent of description, but it is succinct and factual. I've been in the computer science field for a couple decades now... methinks I know whereof as I speak. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The expression 'application' originally meant a problem area that computing power could be applied to-- if you said, "We're looking into a new application" people would assume you'd be writing new code. "Application software" was software written for the application-domain, and from this "We're getting a new app" came to mean acquiring application software.

Now, 'blogging' is potentially an application-domain, but it's perfectly possible to blog without using any specialized application software. The way you're using the word 'implementation' is incorrect-- a particular software app may be an implementation of a set of strategies for the application-domain, but a blog is not an implementation of any app. (Can others join in here and straighten Stevie out?) -- robotwisdom 01:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have a friend who has a Blogger-driven blog that he hosts on his own server under his own domain name... For example, the blog is at http://www.hisdomainname.com as opposed to http://hisdomainname.blogspot.com. Blogger is the application he uses to create his blog. When he creates an entry in Blogger and clicks on POST, Blogger produces the appropriate set of STATIC HTML files and automatically FTPs them to his server. His blog, therefore, consists only of this collection of static HTML files sitting in a nest of directories on his server. His server runs Apache, an application, to serve up the HTML pages, and in order to view his blog one must have a browser - another application. The "blog" itself, however, is application free. Stevie, you pointed to Comments and Trackback as indicators that a blog is an application... Many blogs have neither, and MOST don't have Trackback. My friend's blog has both, but they are driven by a third-party application run by a service bureau elsewhere (Haloscan). Finally, if Blogger and Haloscan suddenly went offline forever, but my friend's server stayed up, his blog would still be there - it still exists - without an application. -- AStanhope 03:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To conclude, a weblog can be created and maintained using a web application (if yer smart) or by hand (if yer an idiot). Hence, it's not necessarily driven by a specific application. And also, OH MY GOD! GET A JOB/LIFE you guys! Wouter Lievens 08:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• This, from a 22-yr old who is creating an online version of RISK and has a "WikiStress Meter" on his User page? Yeah, OK... -- AStanhope 13:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Stevie-proclaims-himself-to-be-the-man's definition of "weblog" as an application used for maintaining a weblog is ideosyncratic at best. It is not what most people mean why they say/write "weblog"; they are referring to the content (the material being published) or perhaps the site (the place it is published), not the tool used to publish it. Furthermore, the developers of such apps don't refer to them the way Stevie does. WordPress.org does not refer to WP as "a blog" but as a "personal publishing system". Blogger.com describes a blog as a "web site" (i.e. something produced with their software, not the software itself). Six Apart refer to MT as "a weblog publishing platform" (i.e. a platform for publishing weblogs). B2evolution is a "blog engine". Bloxsom is a "weblog application", a term that would make no sense if a weblog were itself an application. GreyMatter is "weblogging and journal software". TextPattern is a "content management system for... weblogs." LiveJournal is a "personal publishing ('blogging') tool". Go check your fave if I skipped it. None of them say "___ is a blog", and each of these developers goes on to use "weblog" or "blog" in the sense of content or site. Maybe a comment that the word sometimes gets loosely applied to the software would be appropriate, but there's no justification for making that the primary definition. Tverbeek 12:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S. I see little basis for the assertion that the term was abbreviated specifically to avoid confusion with Apache transfer logs; I'd wager that most bloggers aren't even aware of the other sense. "Blog" is a hip-sounding bit of slang, not a disambiguation from "server log". Tverbeek 12:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tverbeek, I agree completely. See my other suggestions in the 'Intro' section above, and the following sections. Let's not let Stevie-and-his-ego trash this article again. -- robotwisdom 13:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not about ego, it's about facts. I'll be back in 24 hours to revert again, as I won't violate the 3RR. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Further, it's indeed sad to see contributors reduced to continued personal attacks in making a point that's not factual. Calling a 'weblog' a web application is *not* calling it "software" (and I _never_ made a point like this). This continued misunderstanding indicates an unawareness of what the term 'application' means. A weblog is an application of the web (as wikis and discussion boards are as well), almost always backed up by server-side software. And the content is the weblog as well (See the diary/diary rationale I already discussed). In fact, a weblog is a web application even if it's _not_ backed up by server software. If you create a weblog from scratch, you're still applying the web in a specific manner. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "Jorn Barger" would like to call a 'weblog' an "applied web thingie" so as to give it context amongst other "applied web thingies." Oh wait, a web application is an "applied web thingie." :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Stevie, have you considered that the problem with people misunderstanding what you mean by "web application" might stem from the fact that the term is inherently ambiguous and unclear? In the context of computing "application" is most commonly used to mean "a piece of software", so you really shouldn't be surprised that people interpret "web application" in that way. Saying that it's "an application of the web" (or in more common English, "a use of the web") is a little more clear what you mean, but it's still a rather awkward phrase and a peculiar way of describing something. We don't call a magazine "an application of printing technology"; we call it "a kind of publication". Apparently the problem here isn't (as it appeared to be) a half-baked notion of what a weblog is, but a simple inability to express yourself clearly. Let others help with that. (And as an aside, reverting my edit of the opening paragraph and every other edit between that and an earlier unrelated edit of mine was not a responsible act in good faith. Please conduct yourself more appropriately.) Tverbeek 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But a weblog *is* a web application, as a weblog isn't just a form of publication, but a kind of apparatus (i.e., web application) with weblog-specific features for delivering said publication. With respect to the weblog-as-apparatus, this apparatus is a web application, in that it is an implementation of web-based software. A weblog is a web application the same way a wiki or discussion board or web-based photo gallery or web-based location finding is a web application. Discussion boards have "discussion content", and weblogs publish "weblog content", commonly known as the weblog. "Weblog" has a dual meaning here, and we can't ignore this.

Further, reverting is indeed proper and and every contributor's right to do at any time when sound, factual content is being thrown out. My good faith has already been sealed by my long work in the Wikipedia. However, I recognize that I may have made a mistake in my reverting work you did that I might have agreed with. But you have no position to call me on appropriateness, as you knowingly entered into a fray that you should have realized would trigger actions that occurred. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

A simple "I didn't understand what you just wrote" would have been sufficent. And blaming me for your inappropriate actions suggests that we have some kind of "dual meaning" of good faith going here as well. Apparently it also includes blindly reverting based on who the editor was, rather than content. Will you consent to mediation? That would seem a more constructive approach than perpetuating this "fray" of yours. Tverbeek 12:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't begin the fray, as the article was settled for a long time before the so-called inventor of weblogs came in here to stir things up. I'm just seeking to make the article factual. I would also appreciate you stop acting like some sort of authority figure. I've not done anything wrong, as I've followed Wikipedia rules to a tee. My actions have been in 100% good faith. What you call "bad faith" is merely a mild mistake on my part--that's why I blame you--for jumping to conclusions. No mediation is necessary as long as there is an agreement to strive for factuality and not let the so-called inventor of weblogs tell us how to write "his article." — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Arguing about who started it or who's to blame is not going to help. As a newcomer to this dispute, it seems to me that something is needed to resolve it, or else there will be further collateral damage to the article. I have posted a Request for Comment as a first step. If that fails, given the history of the dispute and its degeneration into a pissing contest (or fray, or whatever you want to call it), I would see mediation as quite necessary. Tverbeek 17:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, mediation may help, if only to inform people that they don't "own" concepts or articles. Further, it may be helpful to hold a wiki vote on whether weblogs are web applications or not, and I will gladly accept the consensus. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I confirm that a weblog is NOT a web application. There is a distinct difference between the editor and the text made with an editor. A web app is the editor, the weblog is the result. The original web logs were simply text updates -- very similar to the "new with version x.xx" info included with software -- about what had been added since the last time, gradually including personal info like the reason the update has taken so long, eventually becoming purely about personal info. My blog (whole site, even) is purely windows notepad text uploaded as a saved *.htm, and has been so since May 2001. While the percentage of weblogs may *now* be by a huge majority web app generated, only *one* counterexample of weblogs not being web apps completely nullifies the possibility of "weblog = web app". thehomeland 12:00 June 18, 2005

Put me down for "weblog is not an application." An application, according to dictionary.com, is "a computer program with a user interface;" when people talk about my weblog, they are not talking about Movable Type, but about the content (or, at most, the static html files that make up the weblog). To equate a weblog with the software that produces it is like insisting that milk is a cow. Shadowkeeper 11:00 PST June 18, 2005

Where is the confusion? "Blog" is just a slanged version of "web log" or a log on the web. I don't even see how the definition of application enters into this at all. --Anon, July 6th, 2005

I'm in two minds about this. I didn't particularly see a problem with the previous definition, because for the vast majority of people, their website is displaying their blog by running some server-side blogging software, which is a web application. The web site would not get generated were it not for the web application, and so the web application is the blog. Maybe it's not like saying "milk is a cow". Maybe it's like saying "drink a glass-of-milk" and now people are arguing that we should say "drink milk which happens to be in a glass, but dont drink the glass", i.e. being a bit pedantic. But then again, maybe not. ...Anyway. I'm thinking the definition now also reads pretty well ("web-based publication"). But the sentence lower down "The tools for editing, organizing, and publishing weblogs..." could definately make mention of web application. -- Nojer2 17:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please explain what is objectionable about this link? It isn't just a search engine, it enables user to look at the relative popularity of a topic of their choice in the blogosphere and is unique in this way. I think it would be interesting for anyone doing research on the content and influence of blogs. Or would it be better to link here, another page from the same site, which is a showcase of selected trends? -- newsjunkie 13:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links should provide additional useful info that effectively extends the content of the article. If you feel your link does this, restore it.

Also re: the recent devastation to the links, hopefully, the remover will do a line-by-line explanation of why the deleted links don't comply with the rules. Meanwhile, I'll revert any removals (as much as I can do "legally"). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who reads the History section and wonders whether it was written by bloggers who imagine the blogosphere (and by extension themselves) to be far more important and influential than it really is? I get the impression that if blogs had been around 15 years ago this article would be crediting them with the downfall of Communism, the end of Apartheid, the ouster of Maggie Thatcher, and maybe even putting Hubble into orbit. JAQ 11:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stevie-with-the-egomaniacal-handle-and the-inability-to-read-and-respond writes: "A weblog is an application of the web... If you create a weblog from scratch, you're still applying the web in a specific manner." Stevie's rationalisations are increasingly adhoc and insupportable. This is not what 'application' means, as I tried to explain above, at some length. Stevie's use of 'implementation' is similarly bizarre. The Web is not something that can be applied, but rather the expression 'web application' refers to software applications that reside on the Web. I'm coming to the conclusion that Stevie's attitude needs to be addressed as recurrent vandalism. -- robotwisdom 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Argument via personal attack" will not work here. I have already answered all the points raised here adequately. I will defend the content again tomorrow; however I will attempt to merge what is currently here with what was here before. That is the fair approach, as there are kernels of truth in both versions. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, Stevie, there's no kernel of truth in your confabulated definitions, and I resent that your giant ego has led you to impose your errors on the world for months in the face of my feedback. -- robotwisdom 20:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's apparent you're on some kind of crusade here. I'm merely trying to ensure that the Wikipedia reports facts about various concepts. At any rate, I'm going to merge my material back in tomorrow without doing a full revert. You seem to want to ascribe evil behavior on my part, but that's just plain silly. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

There's been questions raised as to whether I'm really Jorn-- I don't know how to prove it but here's proof I have access to his website. -- robotwisdom 19:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tverbeek, you interpret Stevie's phrase "web application" as synonymous (in his mind) with "use of the web". Perhaps this correctly explains how he sees things, but if you read the article for web application it's obviously not what the expression properly means. -- robotwisdom 23:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That just means the web application article might need some work. You may want to defer to those who have worked as software developers on applications to know what the term 'application' means. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Stevie, I bought my first computer in 1964. If I'm on any crusade, it's to wake you up to the immaturity of your offensively egomaniacal handle. If you want to try re-writing web application so it means what you think it means, I welcome this as a quick way to discover your error. But you clearly aren't a responsible contributor, so I think we need to pursue this in other ways as well (eg classing you as a vandal). -- robotwisdom 01:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Offensively egomaniacal handle", which is what? My goodness. Please do report me as a vandal. I actually encourage you. It will "get laughed out of court."

Further, it would seem to me that using the overwhelmingly emotional language you are using against someone you simply disagree with is what most people would term "immature." You may want to reexamine the kind of language you're using here and see if it's not actually hurting your cause (even if you're right). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously your offensive handle is "Stevie is the man!" which you flaunt after every post. I've never seen any sign that you tried to understand anything I've written-- you exist in a bubble of ego where no one else's opinion matters. You don't notice that everyone else who's entered this debate agrees with me, not with you. You've obviously never bothered to read the article web application. You make absurd egomaniacal judgments about my background without bothering to research them or to acknowledge your errors when I point them out. You reflexively revert to your version without paying any attention to others' views. So what good are you? -- robotwisdom 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone has agreed with you, and you know that. Further, it's not "egomaniacal" to point out that you haven't supported who you say you are. That's just an objective observation.

Re: my handle, that's just my signature. If you want to deny me my individuality and creativity, and accordingly the same of all contributors who have the same ability to produce unusual signatures, then again, you may want to reexamine your stance.

What good am I? What good is anybody? I've made honest attempts to make this article into a better article, and I've been working at it for a long while. So, in Wikipedia terms, that makes me pretty good.

You just seem to want to convert honest disagreements into some pissing match, and that is quite a shame. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone but you agrees that calling a weblog a web app is a mistake. I've tried and tried to explain why, but you don't bother to read and respond. A bragging handle is immature and in bad taste, especially when you don't have anywhere near the insight to match it. If you want to demonstrate your sincerity about improving the article, try addressing the points I've made instead of just reasserting your original pov. Start with the web application article, which is the root of your problem (you never read/understood it.) -- robotwisdom 03:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're plainly wrong that everyone agrees that calling a weblog a web app is a mistake. The disagreement is over saying it's just a web application. And I've already compromised on that. It's all in the record.

I am under no obligation to respond to you at any time. You don't deserve any special repsonses from me just because you say something, which is usually taking an argument in yet another circle. Nor have I ever "bragged". I will follow the facts as I know them. Period. And will gladly discuss this topic with those who aren't so prone to dig in with personal attacks as you have done.

I have already gone to great ends to find compromise language, and that's clear in the record. And later today, I will do the same again. And I'll keep doing it until the content is accurate and covers the topic entirely, not ignoring the fact that weblogs are web applications.

I responded to you as much as I'm going to respond to you. But given that you are indeed a very uncivil person, you not get any further response from me on anything, from now until the end of time. I hope this is clear.

And I will do my honest best to make sure this article is factual, as I've done everywhere else in the Wikipedia. And this much is true, most long-time contributors like me work pretty much the same way! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The statement "a weblog is a web application" is clearly not a "fact", because it is rather obviously disputed. It is at most an opinion or a (seemingly minority) perspective. Tverbeek 12:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a fact, but I'm not going to revert the article back. I only did mild edits that should be agreeable to all. It's amazing to me that there continues to be a disagreement over what really is a simple idea. So I guess wikis and discussion boards are also not web applications? Sheesh. I suppose that whenever I look at this article from now on, I'll have to consider myself entering Bizarro World, where black is white and white is black. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this would be a case of the pot calling the kettle white, then. Tverbeek 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikis may be web applications, but the wiki entry is not, and separating the wiki from the wiki content is only a matter of convention, since English hasn't caught up yet. The cgi or php required to make a discussion board may be considered an application, but the actual discussion board is not an application. HTML is certainly not an application, but I can create a web page with HTML and CSS and Javascript to create a blog that reasonably matches what Blogger or Movable Type applications create, with the ability to add comments and (possibly) trackbacks. At no time, using HTML, CSS, and Javascript, did I create a web application. I created a document that a web browser (a real application) parses. A blog is not an application. Neither is a PDF, which can contain links and allow users to embed comments. A Flash file is totally and completely interactive, but is not an application. One can wrap it in an application, to allow it to play independently on a desktop, but without the application wrapper, it's just a file, just like a blog. A good rule of thumb, if you can embed something in it, it's a file, not an application. -- MacPhoenix 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Man, some people don't like to admit they're wrong, do they? robotwisdom is right; let it go. Uttaddmb 01:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stevie: weblogs are not a web application, Blogger is a web application, WordPress is a web application, but blogs are not. You say wikis and discussion boards are web apps which is also wrong. MediaWiki or PHPwiki are web apps, but the resulting published content isn't.

Weblogs can be published editing plain HTML files with a text editor (as Jorn does) and no web app is involved in the process, you could do exactly the same with forums, but it wouldn't be easy for people to discuss that's why do create a web app to automate the process. Weblogs = format. How you publish? that's a whole different subject. Maybe you would like to focus on web apps which makes easy for people to publish a blog like Blogger. -- Earcos 09:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the "Creating and publishing weblogs" section, there is a sentence:

Blogs with features such as TrackBack are credited with complicating search engine page ranking techniques

How can a "web-based publication" have a programmatic feature? Interesting. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Your face has features: eyes, nose, mouth; they grew there while there were programmatic genetic algorithms modifying your appearance but will remain after you are dead. A weblog has features: ads, comments, trackback, post timestamps, post attributions, &c. If the weblog were archived as static text, it would still have those features, so they are not inherently "programmatic" even though the HTML that expresses them was generated by a program or "application".

We also use the word "features" to refer to the affordances of application software. And if the software that publishes a given weblog affords modification of its content with Web tools, then that weblog can reasonably be called a "Web application". But that doesn't mean that the category "weblog" is a subcategory of "Web application", just that a Web site can be both at once. Jorn's site is certainly a weblog, and certainly not a Web application, and there are plenty of others in that region of the Venn diagram.

Your proposition that "Web application" means "application of the Web" means "use of the Web" - which just means "Web site" - is silly.

Nic Wolff

By this reasoning, a simple HTML page which included JavaScript for, say, image replacement would be a web app. Further, even simple hyperlinks are considered features. Although hyperlinks are admittedly not a programatic feature, the trackback problem you define is not a programatic one.

A. Standfield

Are people still looking for input, or can I remove the listing? Dan100 ( Talk) 20:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• In light of the fact that the sole advocate of the "weblog = a web application" position has ended his crusade [1], I think we can remove the RfC listing. Tverbeek 17:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Dan100 ( Talk) 14:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

This new section reads like a proposal for how blogs could be used, or maybe an analysis of something that a few people are doing, rather than a description of a common, existing type of blog. (I also wonder if the external link in the middle is self-promo.) Any disagreement? Tverbeek 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge because the term is better covered as a section of weblog. -- Christopherlin 02:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I second the merge, as the wider readership of weblog will allow greater adherence to NPOV for the multi-blog article. See Talk:Multi-blog. -- DonIncognito

Merge. No sense having it split that I can see.
-- Baylink 17:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Merging would make the entry simpler to read, rather than having to go onto another page which, essentially, compliments or partially duplicates the first. -- Nightstogether 08:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Seem reasonable. The only problem I see is that this article is already really long (45k) -- Sketchee 15:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to feel like I'm being possessive, just because I was the one who started going nuts on this minor subcategory, but did anyone catch when and why ACSblog was added as an influential blog? Further, is there support for its inclusion in this list? Technorati rankings and similar ratings of the "most popular" law blogs always include the others, including Volokh, Howard's How Appealing, etc. Is this non-POV, just site-plugging by an ACS member or fan? ACS is the American Constitution Society, a self-described progressive alternative to the Federalist Society, q.v., which Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was not a member of. ACSblog.org is also, as far as I can tell, currently down.  :) -- Eh Nonymous 20:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind, it's working now. But, the rest of my question stands. -- Eh Nonymous 20:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Besides blogs and wikis what other formats, templates are there?... Or what other formats, templates are new?... Or what other formats, templates are being developed that might even replace blogs, wikis?... dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 07:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The subsection on medical blogs mentions blogs "that deals with actual patient cases." Can we have a link (in the article or here) or explanation or something? Bondegezou 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Paras Shah ItsAllAboutLinks - Link Directory - Add URL - Submit Article www.itsallaboutlinks.com

Techniques to Increase Profits Through Website Promotion by www.itsallaboutlinks.com

Anyone who is any sort of internet business knows that profits are the most important thing to attain. The key to gaining more profits is through website promotion. With the right website promotion, you can be sure to gain mass profits that you would not have had without it. If you are interested in learning how to gain more profits this way, please read on for some tips.

The first part of gaining profits through website promotion is to have an excellent website design. You cannot expect to gain any profits through a website that is designed poorly or that is difficult to navigate. Make it easy for visitors to your website to find what they need and make a purchase. This will gain you fast profits.

The second thing you should do to gain profits is to use search engine optimization, or SEO. SEO has been widely used to put people's websites at the top of a search engine's list. It is found that most people that use a search engine only visit the website that is listed at the top of the list. This is why you need to use SEO to help with your website promotion. With the proper SEO, you can attract more visitors to your website. More visitors means more profits for you.

Next, to gain more profits you can use email marketing. Be sure that when you use email marketing to gain profits that you are not using spam. Use an opt in list instead. Have an opt in list posted on your website. An opt in list is when people request to receive email material from your website. It has been shown that opt in lists give a 40% increase in response. This means that you will again have more profits.

In order to gain profits through website promotion, you must be sure that you go after your target audience. Be sure that your website's design attracts the type of people that would be interested in your product or service. Also, be sure that your email marketing sends out emails and ezines to people that will actually read it and have an interest in it. If you don't, you cannot expect to gain profits.

Lastly, you can incorporate the use of affiliate programs to help with your website promotion. Have links to your affiliates on your website. Your affiliates will also do the same. With you and your affiliates working together to promote your website, you will start to see more website traffic and more profits.

Website promotion is the only sure way to gain profits for your business. Without it, you can easily find yourself in a hole that is hard to dig your way out of. Be sure to utilize all of these methods so that you can attain more profits.

Blogorrhea -A portmanteau of " blog" and " logorrhea", meaning excessive and/or incoherent talkativeness in a weblog.

I always thought that this was a portmanteau of "blog" and "diarrhea" (also spelt as "diahorrhea")... Meaning pretty obvious... Even if that's not the origin, I think it's a commonly assumed definition.

A common mistake, maybe. rodii 15:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we perhaps remove all external links to examples of blogs from this article? The few that are notable and worth linking have articles we can link, and the others are just non-notable blogs people wanted to promote and added in. What's more, we shouldn't be putting external links outside the external links section except for references, which these aren't. -- fvw * 21:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

YES. We should remove all of the examples. Most of them are relatively unknown blogs. As long as we put up with some of them, people will continue to use this article as free advertising. Rhobite 06:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice timing, thanks. I've just done a major purge. Now if we all join in in keep this article clean this might not have to become a monthly chore. -- fvw * 06:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The intro to this article is rather long, and pushes the table of contents down the page to the point where it is not immediately useful. Perhaps this should be reorganized? Thesquire 06:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a large number of categories of blogs, with most categories having very little text. If there is no objection, I plan on consolidating a number of the categories to create tighter and easier to read article. Thesquire 06:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I support keeping blog and political blog split, as well as consolidating and removing some of the cruft from this article. Good work. Rhobite 01:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can anyone give me some links to actual, working "FriendBlogs"? I can't find any English language examples via Google, and the only web engine for it that I could find, Funchain.com, is apparently down. Also, the vast majority of hits for that word are of mirrors of this article. If I'm not able to find multiple, working examples of one of these soon, and no one posts any examples here on the talk page, I will delete the category. Thesquire 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I finally managed to catch Funchain when it was up, and couldn't immediately see any difference between its blogs and a normal blog, so I'm removing FriendBlogs as a category. Thesquire 19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• As the Partner Blog category seems read more as a proposal than as a description of something that already exists, I am removing its category. If anyone disagrees, they are more than welcome to revamp the text, possibly spinning the section (or the entire collaborative section) off into its own article. Thesquire 21:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Is there any reason for the etymology of the neologism "blawg" in the Topical:Legal section? I realize that it's an often-used term for that subset of blogs, but if anything it belongs in Wiktionary, if at all. Unless someone one squawks I'm deleting it in a few days. Thesquire 09:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the article: "Ham radio also had logs called "glogs" that were personal diaries made using wearable computers in the early 1980s."

Wearable computers in the 80's? "Glogs"? Via ham radio? Is any of this true?? Korny O'Near 18:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Checking the history of the CyberLog and "glog" entry shows it was posted anonymously by 24.103.60.117 on 1 January 2003. Since then it has been transmogrified by further anonymous editors, and it seems the original meaning has been lost. I've read through some of the hyperlinks in the last 24 hours, and much of it reads like an LSD trip, making one think it was all made up as a joke. However, it seems there's truth to the story, since Steve Mann, cofounder of the Wearable Computing Project at the MIT Media Lab, began experimenting with some crude homebrew equipment in the early 1980's while he was a student at MIT. That was a decade before the World Wide Web, 17 years before IEEE 802.11 WiFi became a published standard, and they were playing around with wireless networking using amateur radio equipment operating in the VHF and/or UHF bands. Wearable computers haven't been an interest of most radio amateurs; amateur radio was a means to an end for a few individuals interested in wearable computers. The paragraph probably needs to be revised by going back to the beginning and researching the sources of the story. Quicksilver 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I posted the cleanup notice because this article is a mess and I don't have enough time to clean up all of it myself. If you want to help, you do some of the tasks mentioned above, or help out in any way possible, really. For example, the History section is much too long and merits its own article - if someone willing to massively edit that huge section were to split it off, that'd go a long way towards making this article shorter and more readable. Most text past the Formatting section needs to be substantially re-written, if not removed as dross, so feel free to do that as well. Thesquire 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Really, shouldn't all these damned subsets of blogging be on their own pages? I can't refer anyone to this article, it's rediculous! (comment by 24.22.34.238)

All these "damn subsets" are under consideration for consolidation, removal, or expansion into their own pages, as noted above. Even when categories are split off, though, a summary is left on the main page, so there's only so much that can be done with splitting off categories. Splitting off the history page, though, would cut down on the article size immensely. Thesquire 01:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering if anyone knows the word X in this sentence: "X is to blogging as reading is to writing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.186.197 ( talk) 09:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a well known fact that nobody actually READS blogs. Therefore, a word for READING them is unnecessary. -- Timecop 01:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha. There is a List of blogging terms article, but half that list consists of portmaneau that are used by a very small subset of the blogging community, so I would put much stock in it. Even so, I think there isn't a term for reading a blog other than "reading a blog." Seems kinda useless to make one up, too. Thesquire 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't stretching to distinguish the concept of a blog or blogging from something like "traditional websites" or "usenet forums" an admission of the inherent reality that in fact blogs are not distinguishable from these activities or concepts at all? It seems clear to me now that you can't compare blogging to web publishing because in fact what has happened is that web publishing has become blogging. We struggle to compare between this and that precisely because we cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.195.136 ( talk) 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

   This is an interesting point.  There certainly are similarities between all the forms of
   electronic communications, which are not limited by the inherent motives of political 
   discussion driven by commercial "news" vendors.  What is most interesting of all in this
   new media is the lack of constraint on volition that the civil society of yesterday 
   suffers.  Bloggers, and others, in this media say what is on their minds, which offers
   a better view of reality than political pundits spinning stories for politicians.

   [[User:Vigdor Schreibman] 23 December 2005

The statement "while The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other establishment media outlets formed a mass media cheering section for the revolution in telecommunications, Schreibman's News Columns and Special Reports conveyed a radically different story: of "telco feudalism" enacted by that revolution, in a legislative process that was rife with corrupt polticial influence peddling, by Congressional leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS), and by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)." Seems to be partisian even with citation in place. Just becaule Dole and Gingrich may have done it, and from that paragraph it is hard to understand what is being claimed, it doesn't mean that people on both sides of the isle aren't guilty of simular things. Dark Nexus 16:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

   "Netrality" is not the point in enlightened journalism or blogging.  The whole idea 
   of political discussion is to participate in shaping our community or civilization 
   in some profound way toward betterment.  If "Dark Nexus" can think of other examples 
   of political corruption he should add them, rather than exercising the despicable 
   practice of unilateral censorship, which failed the test of legitimacy in the Dark Ages

Who is Vigdor Schreibman? I removed several paragraphs about him (including an inappropriate section header). There were many early Internet journalists. If he started in 1993, he certainly wasn't the first person posting news to the Internet. I've never heard him referenced as the first blogger, actually I've never heard of him at all. This strikes me as vanity. Rhobite 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

   If you do not know who Vigdor Schreibman is you might enjoy browsing his website 
   at URL: 
http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS 
141.156.141.205 06:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell keeps adding that tripe in. I'm AFDing Vigdor Schreibman article right now. -- Timecop 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that AfDing that article was the most appropriate response. However, the Vigdor Schreibman stuff that keeps being added is blatantly POV, has little root in fact, and is also poorly written. Wikipedia is not a place to post manifestos. Thesquire 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

AfDing the Vigdor Schreibman article may be right, but it's totally unproductive as a response to what's happening in this article. I propose that the Vigdor material, edited down, be included as yet another bullet point in the "Precursors" section (without the claim of being the first blog, since this begs the question of the definition of "blog"), and if the edited material is deemed notable on its own, another article be created specifically for it at Federal Information News Syndicate. Comments? Also, whoever keeps blanking or reverting the blanking or that section, knock it off and participate in the discussion here. rodii 20:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a POV question, but is there nothing criticizing blogs out there, not any negative voices? It seems everyone has good things to say, but does the medium have any inherent flaws? bodhidharma 01:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it does. The problem is, all the jerks with blogs who have this article on their watchlist will immediately jump if anyone begins making any kind of negative edits. -- Timecop 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Once the Vigdor stuff dies down, I'd be interested in hammering out a criticisms article, although perhaps couching it in terms such as "limitations of the medium" or some such would go far in keeping people happy with it. Thesquire 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just wondering if anyone has some good sources of criticism? I would like to add some sections, but I can't seem to find any sites with definite criticisms--it seems that the entire web and lots of the traditional media is enamoured with blogs, and I am looking for voices of dissent. bodhidharma 15:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you asked your local reference librarian that he/she could point you to tons of criticisms of them. Most caveats about stuff one finds on the web (or, even, Wikipedia) transfers to the blogosphere, in that anyone can post anything, be it truth, lies, or somewhere inbetween. I also recall back in the 2004 US Presidential elections that many of the talking heads were complaining about blogs posting the early numbers that the talking heads had and were using to bend their commentary, but not actually reporting on. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 05:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Most or all efforts to insert content on Vigdor Schreibman appear to be by Vigdor Schreibman. OmniCapital is part of Schreibman's OmniCapital.org. Whois shows 141.156.91.165 and 141.156.138.45 are registered to Verizon in Virginia. Schreibman appears to live in the D.C. area. Some of the edits are signed by Schreibman. The person keeps reverting to the same version, even though that removes work done by others. Schreibman needs his own article, but he does not deserve inclusion in the Blog article. If Schreibman is the persistent editor here, then perhaps his shunning by colleagues in the Press Gallery was merely due to his personal style. Someone who represents himself through a self portrait in the style of van Gogh is making a bold statement: "There is no such thing as bad press." User:Anthony717. 27 December 2005.

Dude, no personal attacks - as much as the repeated reversions are detrimental to the article. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a personal attack--well, OK, maybe the crack about the press corps was. But the bulk of User:Anthony717's comment is germane. It's impossible to come to consensus if all one side does is revert. rodii 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree - and if you actually read the text involved it's a bunch of barely-coherent rambling about a website that wasn't even a blog. I just don't want to hand Omnicaptial/Vigdor/whomever real ammo instead of his imagined slights. Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 21:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you there. rodii

Okay, fair enough. It's just that others and myself have put a fair bit of work into the Blog article and that Mr. Schreibman seems to be provoking criticism. User:Anthony717. 27 December 2005.

• Schreibman is making a lot of trouble. What can be done to defeat him? Should the article be locked down? User:Anthony717. 28 December 2005.

Vigdor text straw poll

To actually determine the consensus on the issue, I propose a straw poll. This is the text involved:

Vigdor Schreibman and Internet news

Main article: Vigdor Schreibman

The Federal Information News Syndicate (FINS), Vigdor Schreibman] Editor & Publisher, was from its inauguration on Jan 11, 1993, an Internet-based news organ; its web-based archive -- the first "blog" -- was located, first, on Jan 9, 1994 at the University of Maryland, as FINS InfoAge Lib. Three years later this archive became, on Aug 20, 1997, Fins Global Information Age Library, at SunSITE (Sun Software, Information, and Technology Exchange) located at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where it has operated continuously during the past eight years. This archive was designed as an experimental "digital library" containing back issues of Fins News Columns and Special Reports, as well as pivotal public policy papers "communicating the emerging philosophy of the Information Age."

Vigdor Schreibman was also "the first Internet-based writer to seek accreditation from the Congressional press gallery," according to Michael Wines, writing in his "Media" column at The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1996, at D7. The threat of Internet-based news reporting alarmed the establishment press. Wines sought to disparage internet-based reporters in his story. He compared them with "throngs of Lilliputians" like the editor of FINS, who inhabit the virtual world of cyberspace while reporters of the established press were depicted as "Gullivers," "a colossus of a creature" drawing upon the imagry of the story of " Man-Mountain, told by the great eighteenth-century satirist Jonathan Swift in his book Gulliver's Travels.

However, the fiercely independent, Internet-based news reporting set in motion by Vigdor Schreibman quickly established a new mode of reporting that did not conform to the elitest imagry Mr. Wines sought to convey. Nor were these internet-based reporters -- the first bloggers -- likely to become merely acquiescent tools of the Big Money controlled Congress and its compliant news media.

While The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other establishment media outlets formed a mass media cheering section for the revolution in telecommunications, Schreibman's News Columns and Special Reports conveyed a radically different story: of "telco feudalism" enacted by that revolution, in a legislative process that was rife with corrupt polticial influence peddling, by Congressional leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS), and by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA).

Those stories were to pave the way for a new class of media politics with an "unforgiving toughness and a mastery of new means of communications" that within a decade exploded into a serious challenge between " The Beltway versus The Blogosphere, as reported by Howard Fineman in Newsweek-MSNBC, September 14, 2005. In the early days of the 21st-century the politics of Internet Bloggers has become a powerful new instrument of Countervailing Power moving toward an overthrow of the governing class.

The next crucial generation of bloggers will be compelled to democratize communications with the facilitation of technology that can manage A Technique of Democracy which is needed to "form a more perfect Union" as the First Americans envisioned in the Constitution of the United States. In the absence of a genuine Union the governing system will be guided by the coercive phenomenon of "Groupthink" responsive to raw power alone,

which is what has been occuring for some time.

Votes shall be Keep or Remove, with arguments supporting the vote following. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I think it wise to also have a Modify category, with such a vote being followed by either a brief synopsis of the proposed modification, or a wikilink to a user subpage of the proposed modified text. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove: the text is blatantly POV and is not germane to the article, since the website involved is not a blog at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compilation of personal manifestos. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 23:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: after looking through WP:NOT, I found Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I think it safe to say that this, by itself, justifies removing the Vigdor text from the article. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 12:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Remove: "Groupthink" is not always a bad thing. If people didn't form consensus on things, we couldn't have common knowledge and we wouldn't have common sense. If Mr. Schreibman's only champion is himself, then he cannot be recognized for an accomplishment. There is clearly no single inventor of blogging, but there are popular contributors to the art, and they are recognized. If Mr. Schreibman had inserted into the article a brief, specific and factual claim about his contributions to blogging, then he might have got his mention without all this fuss. As it is, he should be afforded a link in the "See also" section or the "External links" section. User:Anthony717. 27 December 2005.
  • Comment. There is a difference between groupthink, which is a bad thing, and consensus, which is a good process. Vigdor/Omnicapital is blurring the distinction so he can tar this process with the groupthink brush. Don't fall for this ploy. rodii 02:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove: For the same reasons the main Vigor article is on AFD right now - blatant self-promotion/vanity of a subject nobody has heard of about before. Definitely does not deserve several paragraphs in the article. -- Timecop 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove: The depth of discussion on this fairly minor issue is out of proportion to the rest of the article, and the relevance to blogs has not been established (and, I would argue, is mainly a post-facto fabrication of the author). The self-promotion is inappropriate, the facts unverified (unverifiable), and the author's editing tactics have undermined the good will that would be necessary to work out a compromise. rodii 02:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Remove for all the reasons given above. If Mr. Schreibman's accomplishments are truly notable, then the history of technology community will eventually take notice of them. Otherwise, there is no reason to mention him on Wikipedia. He should also be blocked permanently from editing Wiipedia. -- Coolcaesar 19:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep removed. It is a wordy and self-aggrandizing section. I'm not convinced that Schreibman has ever been recognized as a pioneering blogger by anyone in the press. Rhobite 13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep removed Agree with sentiments above: self-publicist etc-- BozMo talk 15:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(I've never been to a discussion on a Wikipedia article before, so I hope I don't do anything wrong. Please let me know if I do) I have been under the impression that a blog, has to have some kind of feed (RSS 0.9x, 1.0, 2.0, Atom 0.3, 1.0, etc.) for its posts in order to be a blog, and not just any website with information posted in reverse chronological order. In the same way that a podcast has be be included in some kind of feed that lets you subscribe to it in order for it to be a podcast and not just an mp3 file with people talking (or music for that matter). But nowhere in the article about blogs are feeds even mentioned, although it is beyond doubt that feeds are an important part of blogs. But are they as important as I've thought (that is, you have to include a feed to call your website a blog), or am I mistaken? The above unsigned comment was by User:Forteller at 21:06, 30 December 2005 -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I know a number of blogs that do not have feeds, and actually remember a couple years ago when feeds weren't common at all. Time was, one had to visit each blog's webpage manually to check to see if it had updates. So no, a feed is not necessary for a site to be a blog, and not all sites with feeds are blogs. However, I know little about podcasts, so you may be right there. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

a moblog is just another blog genre; I propose merging. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] RfA! 10:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. This article is already big enough. Rhobite 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• I also disagree - we recently went through a period of culling stuff out of this article and either setting up other articles (see Political blog, Online Diary, and List of blogging terms) or deleting it outright. Merging that article into blog would reverse that progress. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent section additions of "moblog" and "cultural blog" have started to show a pattern. When is a topical area a whole type? It could be worrying if we are just making this stuff up. Do bloggers in the music industry consider themselves "cultural bloggers"? It is okay to accept convention, but here convention is sort-of being made out of whole cloth. And who will follow it? It would be great for this article to be the origin of new terms, although that might not be proper. It would be sad if a student referenced the article, only to be admonished by his or her teacher for using a term that does not exist. Anthony717 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There are distinguishable subtypes of blogs - mainly that there are those which discuss politics or other substantial subject matter, and others which are nearly incoherent personal ramblings, categories for which have already been created. I'm not sure if "moblogs" are significantly different for how they're created, and I'm also not sure whether we need subtypes of more than a few of the topical blogs. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What about trendy blog elements such as HNT which has mass participation across different types of blogs? They exist in different blogs, and are therefore elements, rather than types of blogs, for they do not themselves characterise the blog. At what point do fads become rituals? Presses above question about "new terms." Since it is widely participated in (perhaps a form of blog "slang"?), can something like it be considered to have evolved from blogs? Is it the "fennel salad" of the noble blog, or the "buffalo wing night", and should both be considered blog cuisine? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Coloneldoctor ( talk •  contribs) 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that made no sense at all -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 07:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

redirects here but the word doesn't appear in the text. (Or at least, Ctrl+F doesn't find it.) Could anybody who knows about multiblogs please add a few words about them to the article? Thanks -- 147.122.2.211 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• What is a Multiblog, and does such things really exist? I've never heard of the term myself. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• I fixed the redirect to go to List of blogging terms, where its briefly described. Its exactly what you think it is.

Since I've had to revert this twice, I'm going to talk about it. This is not a sentence:

Therefore, allowing full user manipulation of the situation to their specifications.

If you eliminate the clause "allowing full user manipulation of the situation to their specifications", you are left with "Therefore". "Therefore", by itself, is not a sentence.

The previous sentence is fine. Daniel Quinlan 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to create another archive page for this talk page in a few days. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This book, available online under a CC license, could probably be used as a reference somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.113.100.70 ( talk •  contribs) 22:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)