contentious.com

14 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. I also link to my public Bloglines collection; my “Blogroll” consists of my husband, my brother, and my mother-in-law. But I’d like to add a vote for linking to things like Flickr and Del.icio.us feeds. Currently I just link to my own, but (now that you have me thinking about it) it would make sense to link to the ones I look at regularly. Thanks for being thought-provoking.

   [Reply]

   1. Holly Ward on August 28th, 2005 at 6:55 pm

2. Thanks so much to all for your diverse and thoughtful comments.

   Here’s where I’m currently at with this issue: Although I don’t like or use blogrolls myself, I realize more clearly how they are useful to others, particularly to newcomers to the world of weblogs.

   Since my audience includes lots of people who are new to online media and to weblogs (they read Contentious to catch up on such topics), I probably should offer a blogroll of some sort. Because for these folks, an OPML file or even a public bloglines collection probably isn’t sufficiently intuitive.

   For me, maintenance is a concern, since I do rotate the blogs I’m actively reading quite frequently — nearly daily. This is why I have a separate OPML file for my must-read feeds, which is a folder within my monstrous overall feed list, which contains hundreds of subscriptions. Almost every day I’m moving feeds in and out of my list of top feeds, depending on what’s happening with the public conversation and my current interests or projects.

   So here’s what I’m’ probably going to do:

   I think I’ll just find a way to syndicate that short list of must-read feeds to my sidebar (or a separate page), and use that as a blogroll. Gluttons for punishment can deal with downloading a sifting through the complete list.

   When I have the chance, of course. Don’t watch for this immediately. But how does it sound?

   - Amy Gahran
   Editor, CONTENTIOUS

   [Reply]

   2. Amy Gahran on August 22nd, 2005 at 2:23 pm

3. I weighed in on this debate in May when Shelley/Burningbird wrote her big post about getting rid of blogrolls. Here’s what I wrote:
   http://chandrasutra.typepad.com/chandra/2005/05/blogrolls_and_c.html

   But this is a little different than what you’re doing. You’re saying how it works/doesn’t work for YOU, you’re not suggesting that everybody else follow your example or that your experience is empirical evidence of a universal (which is what I found with some of the anti-blogroll arguments - stated as universal, empirical fact).

   The wider use of feeds and bookmarks is going to have an impact on blogrolls. I think it’s a fine way to manage links. But I also think that the sidebar blogroll provides a snapshot of the author’s info-sensibility. I certainly view it that way. It also gives me a sense of what the author’s info-diet consists of. So, for example, if I saw on this front page that you link to Shelley I might assume that you’d already read her posts on this topic and then I might write my comment in a manner that assumes prior engagement with that information. I can make certain assumptions that refine what I’m saying - in the same way looking at a personal library does (it’s, as Gladwell puts it, a “thin slice”). So if I see that you’ve read Joyce or Sontag or other of my favourite authors I know that’s a point of connection for us. It allows us to flash common references with each other that deepen our exchange. An external blogroll/feed requires the reader to navigate away from your blog. I don’t know how many people do this but I generally don’t have time. I go to the blogs I read and quickly look over what they’ve been writing about. If something interests me I may comment. I suppose if we could add a stat counter to our feeds we might have a better notion of how many of our visitors were navigating away and then returning to our blogs. But since we don’t have that information it’s hard to know. I can only speak for my own experience, which is that I don’t often navigate away to check out a blogroll.

   I think fairness is a huge issue and a problem for bloggers with a wide readership (and who have relationships with that wide readership). Although I also think that if a person is concerned that they aren’t included that’s their problem, not yours. I don’t avoid reading a blog because the blogger doesn’t read my stuff. It’s kind of like saying I’m not going to read an author because they don’t know me. You either dig what somebody is doing or you don’t. It shouldn’t matter whether they dig you - unless it’s a relationship you’re after, in which case that’s nothing to do with a blogroll.

   But I do feel, as others have said here, that blogs are a marker of community. And I believe that blogging is about community.

   I also believe that part of what differeniates us from the corporate media is our community ties and our support of a diversity of voices. Of course, the a-listers tend to reinforce their own power laws and in that way they are not unlike the big media. That’s different than what I’m doing. My blogroll includes all kinds of people - some famous, some not. And I DO update it. Not very often but about every five months or so I click through and decide whether or not to continue linking based on whether or not I’ve been reading that blog. But I’m not going to feel guilty about my choices.

   As for your “clutter”… hmmm… if anything is cluttered it’s the top/banner part of your blog. I personally think you would benefit from a two sidebar style like mine (but, of course, I’m partial to that). It narrows the post area but it allows you to neatly compartmentalise all your stuff. The more content you’ve got to work with the more you should look to Big Media to see how they organise it all without overwhelming. They’ve got some of the best web designers working out these issues on a continual basis. I like the Guardian and the CBC in terms of layout. They’re presenting a LOT of different kinds of content but it never appears “cluttered”.

   Lastly, I believe that blogrolls are a part of the blog “form”. Maybe this will change but it’s part of what defines a blog for me. The more I have to participate with the more I view something as “participatory media”. Comments, RSS, permalinks, blogrolls, trackback, etc. The fewer of these things you have the closer you’re getting to static old media.

   [Reply]

   3. Melanie McBride on August 22nd, 2005 at 9:44 am

4. I have issues with the clutter involved with blogrolls. That Blogher blogroll was EVIL and I just couldn’t put it up. I read all of the Blogher blogs via my aggregator and then added some of those to my blogroll. I still hate the clutter of it and am working on a new design that I hope will help.

   I believe in blogrolls because I believe they ARE community indicators. And community is what’s most important to me.

   [Reply]

   4. Denise on August 21st, 2005 at 6:31 pm

5. I second Alan on the link to a public Bloglines collection. This is how I compose my Blogroll. That way, interested parties can see what I am reading as an “informal trust network” Alan mentions. Because everything I read is up there, I am not making a choice to either “include” or not include a particular daily read on my list. If I decide to stop reading a particular blog, I remove it from Bloglines and it disappears from the Blogroll. (So there is no maintanance, per se.)

   [Reply]

   5. Kari on August 19th, 2005 at 12:15 pm

6. So averaging the viewpoints, people love ‘em or hate ‘em… so it boils down to personal preference.

   I prefer not to have them cluttering the blog page space, but find value in havving them a click away. I think it is especially good for people new to blogs to help them discover other blogs that are not in their scope.

   It becomes an informal trust network.. I disover Amy’s blog, like the range of stories she writes, and find out from her roll that she reads Bob’s, Maria’s, and Gujon’s blogs– I may chekc them out and decide if they are worth adding to my regular reads or not.

   My approach is to link to a public Bloglines collection… that is pretty much all I use BL for, but its also handy as a master OPML file (as I shuttle between readers on 3 computers that I am adding and delting feeds from)

   [Reply]

   6. Alan on August 19th, 2005 at 10:43 am

7. Personally, I don’t like blogrolls either: If you really like another weblog, you should link to a specific article on it so I can learn about it too. But to give me a long list of other web sites / blogs without you even telling me WHY any of these sites are worth visiting leaves me with more sites to visit, ostensibly, and no clue why I should bother…

   [Reply]

   7. Dave Taylor on August 18th, 2005 at 12:50 pm

8. Amy - there are many ways around the supposed disadvantages you propose. Point by point response:

   1. Yes, blogrolls do clutter site design. So put a small sample on your home page, and then branch users to a page that lists all your blogroll members.

   2. Maintenance is not a problem, really. Most of the blogs you probably don’t change that often. Usually, your users help you find out when maintenance is necessary.

   3. As a OPML savvy reader, I appreciate your blogroll as OPML. But that does not make for happy accidents or intentional connections that your readers experience while reviewing your blogroll. We used to get about 10-15 inbound links from Jeff Jarvis’ old blogroll before he went to his WordPress with no blogroll. And Dan’s various blogs usually pass about 15-20 inbound visits per week as well, solely from his blogroll.

   4. I’ve never had to explain to anyone, nor have I heard of anyone having to justify a blogroll.

   All in all, I think they are worth it. Perhaps this is because it’s such a great resource when you find the right blogger, who takes the time to put together a thoughtful list of the best of breed in their blog’s category.

   [Reply]

   8. hypergenesb on August 18th, 2005 at 12:43 pm

9. I have on on my site. I don’t really use it much anymore but I ised to use it like I now use blog lines.

   Most of us blogers tend to use readers and such to keep track of various blog. Blog rolls, in many respoects, are obsolete

   I still think they are a great way to introduce casual surfers to other blogs. I know that many of the first time visitors think it very kewl.

   [Reply]

   9. Lumpy on August 18th, 2005 at 11:56 am

10. Blogrolls = Serendipity

    I used to work in a huge library and would browse the stacks based on a single call number. By understanding the cataloging system, you can move up and down, left and right of the call number in your hand.

    In doing so, you’ll likely find many more things you are interested in.

    This became a hobby and then an obsession for me in the late 80’s.

    Blogrolls are the same to me. They give me conidence to click and they reinforce my social net.

    [Reply]

    10. Bob on August 18th, 2005 at 11:48 am

11. I sometimes fear that blogs, social nets, folksonomy, etc. are ‘of the digerati, by the digerati, for the digerati.’

    But then I visit Amazon again and my faith is restored.

    [Reply]

    11. Bob on August 18th, 2005 at 11:32 am

12. Why are so many blogs blogging about blogging these days? This is not a good sign. There must be a future for blogging beyond blogging! To be quite honest, I liked Contentious better when you talked more about content and writing. But that’s just me.

    [Reply]

    12. Corine on August 18th, 2005 at 10:01 am

13. Why are so many blogs blogging about blogging these days? This is not a good sign. There must be a future for blogging beyond blogging!

    [Reply]

    13. Corine on August 18th, 2005 at 10:00 am

14. I’ve always felt that blogrolls help build community — they’re a clear, direct way of showing wthe interests and “connections” of a particular blogger. I used to blog quite a lot, and I think I felt as though my blogroll placed me in a nieghborhood of bloggers. I don’t blog very much anymore, and I’ve noticed I don’t read blogrolls quite as much. However, when I start again, I’m pretty sure I will have a blogroll.

    [Reply]

    14. cheryl on August 18th, 2005 at 9:16 am