Web Magic

by Rick Hendershot, Linknet Resource Library

Blogging programs were originally developed in the late 1990s by ardent web surfers whose primary purpose was to "filter" and comment on the web content they found most interesting and valuable. This mostly involved surfing the web, finding interesting, perhaps obscure articles or resource material, providing a link to it, and perhaps to some related or alternative points of view, and often adding a short commentary.

So the very first blogs were not so much "journals" as they were ongoing works of personal reference.

As Rebecca Blood points out in Weblogs: a history and perspective this original idea was developed over a very short period of time in 1999 by a very small handful of "bloggers". The emphasis was on community, interaction, short, pithy and often sarcastic commentary, and extensive inter-linking.

This original concept began to morph into something different in late 1999 and early 2000 -- the blog as personal journal. According to Blood the main reason for this change was the structure of the new blogging software that was rapidly becoming popular. In particular it was Blogger (since purchased by Google) that set the tone and gave impetus to the shift. As Blood says,

Blogger itself places no restrictions on the form of content being posted. Its web interface, accessible from any browser, consists of an empty form box into which the blogger can type...anything: a passing thought, an extended essay, or a childhood recollection. With a click, Blogger will post the...whatever...on the writer's website, archive it in the proper place, and present the writer with another empty box, just waiting to be filled.

The result was the development of two different forms of blogging: blogs as "filters", and blogs as "journals". The resulting content can be very different. You can still see this in the design of Blogger (blogspot.com). Unlike "real" blogging software that emphasizes commenting, trackbacks, and pinging, Blogger seems to make a point of de-emphasizing these things.

This was pointed out to me a few months back when I first began developing my own blogs. A webmaster who was interested in my Linknet project commented that I should eventually get around to doing "some real blogging". Being very new to the whole blogging scene at that time I was not sure what he meant, or even whether this was an innocent suggestion or a meaning-laden insult.

In retrospect I realize he was commenting on the way I had turned most of my blogs into a series of articles. Clearly I was using a journalistic style. He was suggesting that "real blogging" is something different. I took him to be saying that it is somewhat contrary to the spirit of blogging to develop your own ideas in a kind of cocoon. Better to use web content other than your own as a taking-off point for your own comments and opinions. The "filter" model.

Actually, now I realize many of my own blogging exploits do not conform to either of these two original models. If a personal journal must consist of top-of-mind ramblings, then I am not particularly interested in doing personal journals. I prefer posting things about half way between free form ramblings and carefully worked out articles.

On the other hand I cannot see why one cannot simply develop his or her own ideas independent of what others may or may not have said. It seems to me this is the potential downside of feeling you have to conform to a blogging formula. "Horrors! I can't find a link...!!! Now what do I do?"

On the other hand I have come to appreciate the "coverage" you can get by using your blog as a "filter". In fact it often seems like a perfect way to break out of your own little isolated world. It gives you a chance to take a close look at what other people in your field are talking about, and bounce it off your own stuff. If you happen to develop a few readers, you'll be doing them a favour by pointing them to a broader spectrum of opinions and observations than the narrow range they're going to find in your own blog.

At the same time I think it is a bit odd to suggest there is something called "real blogging", and that to really do it right you should conform to some predefined model.