March 6, 2005

the death of metablogging

hjsdert06.jpg
Let’s face it: The era of “Meta­blog­ging” is well over.
Much of what fue­lled Meta­blog­ging (i.e. “blog­ging about blog­ging”) in the last few years was the rather quaint & somewhat endea­ringly pathe­tic, semi-tragic, sopho­mo­ric hope that if you write about blog­ging for long enough, some­body will magi­cally appear out of the wood­work and give you enough cash to live com­for­tably on. Fore­ver! Yay!
Wha­te­ver. The more inte­res­ting era of the blog­ger who “actually does stuff” began a while ago, even if the meta­blog­gers were slow to catch on. Joi Ito is a good exam­ple. As is Mark Cuban. As is Tom Mahon. As is Fred Wil­son.
A lot of “A-Listers” (a term that seems emp­tier by the day) are meta­blog­gers. The more of them that disa­gree with my the­sis, the hap­pier I will be.

13 Responses to “the death of metablogging”

  1. visage says:

    There is a cer­tain satis­fac­tion coming from seeing one’s words on the page. It mat­ters not what they say, they simply exist.
    Long live ver­bal diarrhea.

  2. essey says:

    You’re, like, my new hero.
    Not because of this post spe­ci­fi­cally, but just in gene­ral. I found you through your crea­ti­vity piece on Chan­geThis (which totally rocks, btw), and usually when I find a blog I like I just read through the past week or so of posts, add it to my news rea­der, and just read the new stuff… with yours, I’ve read all the way through to the begin­ning of January.
    You have a very refreshing way of loo­king at things and it makes me exci­ted about the future because of all the chan­ges that are likely to occur.

  3. Meta­blog­ging is over

    Appa­rently the period of meta­blog­ging (blog­ging about blogging)

  4. I’ve always another name for what you call meta­blog­ging: “blogs­ter­ba­tion”. The folks who do it seem to enjoy it, but it doesn’t do much for anyone else.

  5. Meta­blog­ging is Dead

    Accor­ding to gaping­void, a blog offe­ring lots of very humo­rous comics, blog­ging about blog­ging is dead.

  6. Any pre­dic­tions about when we can expect the death of “the death of meta­blog­ging” meta­blog­ging? I’ve been rea­ding this post since early 2001, when it wasn’t par­ti­cu­larly new, and I’ve yet to see a cogent expla­na­tion of why, if it were true, anyone would feel the need to write about it, and wouldn’t find their wri­ting about it to simply be more of it.
    Also, should anything be read into the fact that at least three if not all four of your exam­ples of pro­per blog­ging blog about what they do with an enor­mous pile of money?

  7. Hugh Mac­leod calls for the end of metablogging

    In gaping­void: the death of meta­blog­ging, makes the usual points against navel­ga­zing, ren­de­ring this weblog obso­lete. I gather that meta­me­ta­blog­ging is still cool, though?…

  8. John Allsopp says:

    Hugh,
    I am lar­gely sym­pathe­tic with your posi­tion (sorry dude), and the myriad of “me too” blogs that add little has long irri­ta­ted me a bit (par­ti­cu­larly given I try to actually pro­vide some kind of ori­gi­nal con­tent at mine)
    http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/
    I guess there are two inte­res­ting issues though.
    1. Why have meta­blogs tra­di­tio­nally been so suc­cess­ful?
    2. (an anci­llary issue) Do they actually add anything? Is there actually something meta about them?
    To ans­wer the second ques­tion first. I think they often do. They bring taste, rele­vance, aggre­ga­tion based on per­cei­ved sha­red values and inte­rests. Given the simply enor­mous num­ber of poten­tial blogs and other news sour­ces, we need inter­me­dia­ries to help us find rele­vant infor­ma­tion. Now, soft­ware based inter­me­dia­ries (like tech­no­rati and so on) don’t work in the same way human based ones do.
    Tech­no­rati does not have taste, a set of values, something human we can share, in the same way that human meta­blogs do. So I think part of their suc­cess is the human con­nec­tion they make bet­ween their rea­ders and the infor­ma­tion they link to.
    The first ques­tion is super­fi­cially simi­lar, but actually quite dif­fe­rent. The suc­cess of meta­blogs lies in karma who­ring (actually that’s a bit unfair, as the moti­va­tion for most if not all of them is not pri­ma­rily if at all karma who­ring, but the result is the same. So let’s call this a Kar­me­co­nomy).
    A blog is suc­cess­ful as a func­tion of its con­nec­ted­ness. The more peo­ple who link to you, the more suc­cess­ful you are. But how do you get peo­ple to link to you? Ah, you link to them.
    Now, meta­blogs are at a dis­tinct advan­tage to blogs whose pri­mary focus is their own ideas, opi­nions and so on. They natu­rally point out. It’s in their DNA to link to others.
    Perhaps the pro­blem is that we think the Kar­me­co­nomy is impor­tant (blo­gli­nes, blog­dex, tech­no­rati all value blogs accor­ding to their con­nec­ted­ness).
    But is con­nec­ted­ness a good mea­sure of value? Does con­nec­ted­ness trans­late into often read blogs? Does con­nec­ted­ness trans­late into hel­ping shape people’s idea, opi­nions and beha­viors?
    I really don’t think so.
    I think the value of a blog lies as much in much less easily mea­su­red varia­bles than con­nec­ted­ness. How often are artic­les read in full? How much does a blog start con­ver­sa­tions (through com­ments at the site, through track­backs, and so on)?
    What per­cen­tage of its rea­ders return time and again?
    But these are very hard if not impos­si­ble to mea­sure.
    I also think meta­blogs don’t do these things nearly as well. They aren’t in their nature.
    Meta­blogs are “tick and flick”
    They are still about broad­cas­ting, not con­ver­sa­tions. We are com­for­ta­ble with them, because they map onto our exis­ting models of media.
    But yes I’d say their days are numbered.

  9. hugh macleod says:

    Phil, go ahead and meta­blog all you want. Hun­dreds of thou­sands of peo­ple are doing it every day…
    I just don’t hap­pen to think it’s where the most inte­res­ting part of the blo­gosphere is hap­pe­ning right now.
    But if it’s wor­king for you, I’d say carry on, happily.

  10. I guess what kind of meta­blog­ging you tar­get.
    I’m more con­cer­ned with the tech­nic and the future trends.
    Also, I do not want to be depen­dent of an employer.

  11. Meta­blog­ging

    … the story of meta­blog­ging is far from over. It will be a long tale (as oppo­sed to a long tail).

  12. Hugh: Phil asked a great ques­tion about piles of money, but ins­tead of ans­we­ring it, you meta­blog­ged.
    I can unders­tand why: Cri­ti­ci­zing meta­blog­ging is like refu­ting Ann Coul­ter — it may feel good, but it only makes them stronger.

  13. Blog­ging about Blog­ging about Blog­ging about …