Gothamist: Gothamist Notes 1: What Not to Do When You Blog

Ron Mwangaguhunga

Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:25:23 -0500

Gothamist is like the cool Uncle for bloggers -- like Tom Hanks on Family Ties without the alcohol problem. I heart Gothamist.

Wendy

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:50:19 -0500

Your rule one quotes Meg's definition of a blog and rule two says don't blog about yourself, family or friends. Have you actually read Meg's blog? I would guess not. Her blog is highly personal ... she writes about all of those things and then some. I find a lot of blogs just repeat the same old tired information and links everyone else is linking to - boring! Give me inteilligent personal commentary anyday - intelligent being the keyword. Besides - if you don't like someone's blog ... don't read it. Why do people always want to tell other people what to do?

themadblogger

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:02:10 -0500

Oh, I see. "Don't use 'I.'" Instead, just use pronouns like "we" and "our." Seems to me like a cheap way to violate your own rule.

jake

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:07:31 -0500

The usage statement for the gothamist royal "we" goes something like this: 1. don't write about yourself or your experiences on gothamist 2. if you must include a personal experience as supporting information in a post, use "Gothamist remembers the first time we woke up under a table at the Magician" or "Gothamist remembers the first time we were kissed by a homeless man". 3. if a post contains more than one or two of these statements, don't run it.

Kim Wells

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:15:16 -0500

And the one thing I noticed is that on your main page, whenever you want to say something "personal" you say "Gothamist" or "we" instead of "I." Are you really a "we?" Is there more than one person writing your site? Your note about not using "I" reminds me A LOT of when I get students in my freshman comp class who say "you mean we're actually allowed to use 'I' in our writing" (because their English teachers have told them not to) and I say "yes, for God's sake because otherwise your prose becomes tortured in trying to find and/or invent other pronouns and I can't bear to read it." I notice that in one of your comments you say: "if you must, blog about your dog- but blog about other things too" and I would say that this is probably your best bit of advice. And maybe you'd get less flack if you said "a list of things you should do to make a blog that the Gothamist wants to read." Because I for one love blogs with personal stuff. And am usually sort of bored by the ones without it. So if this were seen as a general list of your preferences, instead of commandments from on high, people might take them better. But then, I might be full of crap too.

rocketman

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:51:39 -0500

Interesting "rules", though rules that go beyond things such as the need to be factual and to be conscientious toward readers may be excessive and take some of the fun out of blogging. Some of my favorite blogs are personal in nature, and if a person is willing to share, I have no problem with that. Good job.

PZ Myers

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:44:31 -0500

I think the comments here reveal another rule that was not mentioned: in your commentary, be sure to say a few things that your readers will disagree with, so that lots of dissent and argument will ensue.

A

Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:57:45 -0500

Interesting article. Although I have to disagree with some of your points. Maybe you need to remind yourself what a blogger/webjournal/weblog is. I love Destiny's comment. I totally agree with her.

Jen

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:00:33 -0500

And by large salary, Jake means "salary of the imagination."

jake

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 22:35:34 -0500

no one appointed gothamist blog cop- we applied for the job through the blog civil service exam that was administered in downtown newark last spring, and after months of background checks, we finally received our badge last week. as you know, the job comes with a large salary- but the real benefits come from the perks! mostly we just use the badge to impress chicks, but jen beat a speeding ticket with it last week.

e_e

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:15:07 -0500

There are different blogs, with different aims. My friends and I use blogs primarily as a way to keep in touch with each other, now that we are living in different cities and no longer see each other regularly. Day to day updates with our thoughts, jokes, and details of what is going on in our lives are not likely to be of interest to a random reader, but are invaluable to close friends. It's more personal and less work than letters and not annoying like those mass email updates that some of my other friends send while they are away. If some other random person wants to read my blog - well and good; I don't mind, but it's not aimed at them. At the same time, I'm careful to keep it anonymous so my parents, boss, etc, don't find it.

JMAY

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:50:47 -0500

Apparently it's better to refer to yourself in the third-person than to say "I". Yeah, that's not pompous or anything. Who appointed Gothamist blog cop?

Mat_Drinks

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:50:42 -0500

You mean you didn't hear??? Livejournal is back in, but this time it's ironic! PS: Do I have free reign of the use of Web Log... y'know since it's not abbreviated.

Gus

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:47:59 -0500

Jen: I actually did pee blood once and then wrote about it in my blog: http://www.spies.com/~gus/ran/0006/000627.htm That probably violates these blog principles on several levels.

omit

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:03:08 -0500

The Gothamist rules of success: 1) Use an image with every post. 2) Put more than one link in every post (over 3 links is good). 3) Post about at least once every hour. 4) Focus on a particular subject, like New York. 5) Refer to yourself in the third person. 6) Link to the NY Times and NY Post once a day. About the personal/nonpersonal thing, I've seen both methods be successful. However, I think blogging personal items to the public can be very draining and problematic when it comes to your relationships, jobs, etc (Pepys is an exception, but he's dead.). If you're going to do a journal/diary, I think password protection is a good idea.

bk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:00:55 -0500

Sorry for the typo: It should be "I think it's essential..."

bk

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:41:36 -0500

I do not understand why so many oppose advise about blogging and also confuse it with "instructions" or "rules". Is this subject a new taboo? Lawrence Block, the famous writer (living in New York) has written four books with advise about writing fiction. The books are very popular. I think its essential in any creative occupation to listen and learn from others experiences, to discuss what you are doing and how you can develop what you are doing.

fairest

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 04:19:10 -0500

Wow you guy's are corny, why don't you put a TV show on Lifetime about blogging? Thank God I had that cute teen lesbian from your personals to "gawk" at during the tooth-pulling.

PureLand

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:50:42 -0500

Do bloggers really need instructions from anyone on what they should all write/not write? There are folks of all ages and persuasions writing about things of interest (or not) to folks of all ages and persuasions. I think the blogosphere can handle the diversity.

Aine

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:32:02 -0500

I thought the whole blog entry was pretty amusing, especially the comments. Spend an evening reading and surfing through LiveJournal (if you can stand it). The reason I left LJ was because people told me they didn't want to read serious posts on thoughtful subjects (and tried to tell me what to write about), they much preferred the Quizilla crap, the surveys, the whining about relationships, the babbling about daily life stuff. I still have my account over there, but I almost never post in it because of the pressure I felt to write about unimportant things. I prefer writing in my own blog about whatever I want to write about. I miss the interaction of what a community like LiveJournal brings, but I don't miss the mindless babble.

jake

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:50:31 -0500

as a few of you have pointed out- there's more than a little bit of irony in my comments above- but also a lot of hardcore belief- if you go through gothamist and bluejake, the worse posts are the ones about me personally- the best ones are always about subjects or ideas. it's an overstatement to say personal posts should be outlawed- it's too tempting to do it occasionally when you have the whole weblog apparatus set up- and there may even be rare instances where it's called for- but if you make a habit of personal posts, i think it destroys any chance of the blog finding a wider audience. and that's the truth- so, if you must, blog about your dog- but blog about other things too.

pet reader

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:00:01 -0500

tell me about your dog! personally, I enjoy reading about other people's pets in their blogs, oops, scratch that, journals...

andy

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:52:18 -0500

(1) It's a technology that can do certain things (2) whether you do those things is up to you (3) the facts are that you can (a)write and ftp up quick/ ftp up quick and unwrite (b) hyperlink (but then you can do that in Word) (c) create effects (but then you can do that in Word) (4)it's the fact that everyone can do it, to some degree or other, rather than what you do with it that is the cause of so much fascination and rule makers. (5)content is secondary - in fact it's irrelevant qua the technology (the slogan might be,It's The Technology Stupid!!!!) and mostly useless: but no one has the authority to grade anyone's content, to say in what form it will be presented, or to say what they can or cannot put into a website.

Jennifer

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:45:54 -0500

> Blogs are worthless in the grand scheme of things. > Whether you're prattling on about your life or > your political... Dear Jason, Please feel free to remove your head out of your ass. From, Jennifer

Damien

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:14:00 -0500

I think it's fair to say, one should avoid writing about personal trivialities (I stepped in a puddle this morning) but feel free to post personal adventures (here's how I built my shed). For most topics, the only original thing most people can contribute is a personal angle - trying to be objective just makes one a neophyte editorialist. And usually boring. My audience is myself in 5 years and my daughter in 20. And, anyone who thinks what I write is interesting. The golden rule: Variety is the spice of blog. My personal contribution to the evolution of blogging/websiting: the Guided Archive (tm), which gives a method and reason to read what happened the day before yesterday.

Destiny

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:13:55 -0500

#9. "Do not tell other bloggers what to do."

Jason

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:10:30 -0500

Blogs are worthless in the grand scheme of things. Whether you're prattling on about your life or your political views, you make the same impact on the world. Point to famous blogs as counterexamples. The 99.999% of blogs that go unread make a convincing case to back me up. A blog will not get you a job at CNN. It will not get you any meaningful attention. It, like all personal web sites, serves to pad the ego of its creator.

Lily

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:13:24 -0500

Ahem? Three words come to mind: Pot. Kettle. Black. Anyway, some of the points you make are certainly good ones, but this holier-than-thou lecturing is a little annoying, and quite condescending, oh wise Internet God. What makes the online community so interesting is the diversity of styles and discourses. Can you imagine how utterly boring it would be if we all surrendered to your ideal blogging paradigm? Of course 50% of all blogs are, well, crap, but that's inevitable, in anything in life. I also personally dislike many of the things you've mentioned, but variety is the spice of life. Lighten up. If you don't like it, don't read it! The integrity of internet writing is threatened more by those who want to dictate its form more than anything else. What's worse than bloggers who commit the crimes you've outlined above? 'Coasters' who get a name for themselves and then rest on their laurels. Some of the supposed 'A-list' blogs out there are bloody terrible. Shoot them first, I say!

bk

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:12:28 -0500

I totally agree with Gothamist/Jen & Jake on "What Not to Do When You Blog". All notes are well written and contains very good advise. I have been in the media-business in northern Europe for about 20 years, so I base my opinion on my experiences as journalist and editor. Writing about your private life is absolutely uninteresting from the reader's point of view. Better keep that as a private diary. But if you write about something from a personal viewpoint you have a greater chance to find an interested audience.

Christa

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:07:41 -0500

......Also, there was some good advice in this gothamist post. Thanks gothamist.

Christa

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:59:04 -0500

Um, jake, most of what I know about you personally has come from your blog. I think that if you take stock you may find a lot of personal stuff on your blog. As for me, if I don't post about my friends and family they'll kill me! But I try to squeeze in some other equally uninteresting-to-others content. I am adding authors and giving them two rules: #1. No plagiarism #2. No porn (cause there's so darn much already!)

veritech pilot

Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:36:20 -0500

you are so asinine your tongues gone clear thru your cheeks.

jake

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:13:42 -0500

yeah- i agree- you have the right to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home- but if you walk around outside without pants on, don't be surprised if people look at you strange. that's what i'm arguing for- a universal consensus that blogging about your private life is totally uncool!

Charlie

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 22:15:23 -0500

Why would anyone take this so seriously? If you don't want to read my site, don't. But don't tell me how to do what I want to do. I can entertain, enlighten and link to my heart's desire, but I'll do it on my terms. It's my site after all. So comment away or not.

jake

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:58:57 -0500

that's clearly a post about soy lattes- not meg's personal life. i'm sure if you printed the whole post, she'd go into great detail about how soy lattes are made, where soy beans come from, and how irving place got its name.

Lisa Clarkson

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:02:21 -0500

I'm very happy that bloggers have never followed your rule #2. Like way back in 1999, when Meg started a post like this: wednesday, may 5 I went to the Tully's on Irving Street (@9th) for my usual vanilla soy latte. The man behind the counter told me they were out of vanilla soy.

jake

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:21:19 -0500

i agree- if you are anne frank, back from the dead, or jonathan van geison, you may blog about yourself. otherwise it is better to take hundreds of monotonous pictures of chinatown tenements and post them in lieu of having to compose prose.

Eeksy-Peeksy

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 07:47:11 -0500

You broke the most important rule: never blog about blogging.

Swan-T

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:34:10 -0500

I think an interesting blog consists exclusively of posts regarding the author and his/her guitars.

JVG

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:47:08 -0500

Rule of thumb: If you are me, you may write about yourself. Otherwise, it is a better idea to write about me.

Firas

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 01:39:32 -0500

Er, Jake, you're being silly. Let's not forget how this whole blogging thing started, ok? Look at it this way. Anne Frank wrote about her--I can't even begin listing the things she wrote about that I couldn't care less about--but people care, because her thoughts connect to more than just her. Just talking about what you ate for lunch might not lend you lots of readers, but I'd bet there are weblogs out there that talk about food and have large audiences. The trick lies in whether you can think beyond yourself. Anil Dash and Kottke (to choose cited examples) talk about themselves ALL THE TIME. I did this, I did that, I was here, when I saw this, etc.

jake

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:22:15 -0500

why can't we all just agree that people who want to blog about personal things should be kicked off of blogger and typepad, rounded up, and interned over at livejournal? is that so unreasonable?

Swami Prem

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:08:34 -0500

Don't make it personal? Whats up with that? Most of my recent posts are about my daily meditations, and those are very personal to me. But you see, my blog is about yoga, meditation, religion and spiritual practices, so it fits in with the content of the site. I say make it personal if thats what the blogger wants. Afterall, its the bloggers blog.

Natalie

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:50:47 -0500

I agree wtih a good deal of what you're saying, but part of wht you're running into is the collision between blogging and online journalling: I started out doing the latter, and while my site has the appearance of a blog, it still has basically the same content. I've tried to do link+commentary a number of times and it bores me to write that way. I started my journal as a way of making myself write regularly. And that is why I'm still writing, 3+ years later. It being online keeps me accountable--the fact that anyone finds it interesting is, well, nice, but ultimately not why I do it. If you don't like what I'm doing, no one's forcing you to read it. There are plenty of sites out there, more than enough to suit anyone's fancy. There's no need to get all superior because the content you prefer isn't what everyone is creating. For me, I like having a searchable record of my life.

dayment

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:41:45 -0500

Depends on what you're *doing* each day. Some people *can* write about what they ate (and post the recipe) and what they did (say, creating something and including a picture), and flocks of people will read it. I've learned this the fun way. And so will the 16 year-olds. Well, some of them maybe. (You would probably despise my site.)

Jen

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:41:31 -0500

The thing is that once you start to agree (or disagree) and become fascinated with the person's ideas and thoughts, you want to know more about the person behind them. I'm totally guilty of trying to find out more about different writers I really like. But maybe we need to put a cap on our natural curiosity (the reason being the over importance of celebrity culture).

jake

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:19:08 -0500

i may be alone in this- but i think there's nothing valuable in blogs that simply record the events in a person's private life. my ideal blog is about ideas, events, subjects, threads that connect us to one another. sure- i could spend every day recording where i ate lunch and who with, but would you really want to read it? would i really want to write it? i guess i don't understand people that blog about their personal lives- it just seems lazy to me.

sophie

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:23:43 -0500

i think you guys do a lovely job. and i don't even live on the upper east side...

Aaron

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:51:27 -0500

One more: Spend the $10 or so to buy your own domain name. Much more professional.

emjaybee

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:38:55 -0500

Hmmm. I wonder if the line between "blog" and "journal" really means much anymore. If I have a bloglike setup with comments but I write journalistic personal entries, which may or may not have links, what do I call it? I'm not a big fan of categories; I prefer the Calvinball approach, where you make up the rules as you go along. I do agree on the writing as if everyone will find it. They will. So keeping it general is a good idea, unless you hate someone enough that you want them to know it/send you hate mail that you can then post....

Jake of 8bitjoystick.com

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:28:21 -0500

I have to diagree with the whole "Do not write about your self part" I tried this and my readers reacted. So I have a eZine blog and a personal blog.

veritech pilot

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:06:17 -0500

points 3-7 are good tips for blogging etiquette. 1 and 2 however are dictating what a "definitive" blog should be, which is just a bit presumptuous. i wasnt aware blogging was so regimented and "good" so objective. i should take notes...for my own good. some people blog for no apparent reason...whether they want to attract readers or not (i wasnt aware this was a popularity contest.) or maybe friends (and strangers) far away do actually read what one does in their everyday lives, because its become another form of communicating.

Jen

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:34:44 -0500

Believe me and Jake when we say this post generated a lot of debate at the Gothamist office.

jake

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:08:27 -0500

afraid i must diagree with uncle grambo and veritech above- this post isn't about "rules" that people must follow- it's about notes on what we think make a blog good. sure, as chris rock has said, you could drive a car with your feet- but that don't make it a good fucking idea. you could open a live journal and talk about your issues with people at work, or write about your failures in love- but don't complain when even your friends refuse to read it. trust me here- it's for your own good!

Olga

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:10:38 -0500

Hey! Some of us use Livejournal and are not linguistically challenged 16 year olds. Thankfully we don't take ourselves seriously enough to be truly offended by #1. Though we do suspiciously use the royal we....

veritech pilot

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:01:34 -0500

1.this isnt a class on semantics. 2.make it impersonal. check. 3.well i agree with this. 4-7.fine. blogs can be anything and everything. they can be what the rules state they "should" be, or they can be what you think they "shouldnt" be. why should every blog be commenting on the bad news of the world?

LP

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:16:22 -0500

Typo: No not expect to .... Rule #4, 2nd sentence. That should be do not. Please appreciate my vigilance & insanity at 3:22am. Also, the timer on your comments section is 54 minutes fast...

Uncle Grambo

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 02:23:06 -0500

I heart Gothamist, really I do. And while I was starting to dig on the sarcasm of some of the earlier "rules", I think that somewhere around Rule 3 or 4 this post started to spin a little bit out of control and into the realm of Sunday sermons (is it just a coincidence that this was actually posted ON a Sunday?). I read and read, waiting for a punchline that didn't come. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan, but the main reason that blogs have blown up and attracted so much media attention this year is that there AREN'T rules to abide by. The barriers to entry in the blogosphere are minimal (hell, even homeless people are blogging!), so anyone out there who's got anything to say can start up their own site over at Blogspot and write `til their heart's content. Naturally, great sites with great content will rise to the top and get their rightful due (be it page views, getting on guest lists at the local hotspots, jobs in the legit media, what have you) ... this site is clearly in that upper echelon. So, as a leader in this arena, why try to impose all kinds of stodginess in the Blogosphere with rules and regulations? Leave that to the chumps at places like IDG who publish "Blogging For Dummies" and other BS like that. Obvs.

Hoofin

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 01:27:11 -0500

Yeah, a #9 could also be about the experimental nature of the internet and blogging. If you generally focus on small community issues/ small public officials, don't be surprised at all the contortions they will throw behind your back. And the cronies/tortfeasors they'll send your way. (I got one of them almost seems to asking me to come and take a lien on his house, I dunno. ("Here. Me and my family live here, but I have this uncontrollable urge to attack you personally for criticizing my political candidate/ potential government contract patron. So here, come get a lien on my house." ) Like Jen says, once you commit to writing, you better stick with it as long as sitemeter tells you you have hits. And unbelievably maybe, once you are on the daily/weekly surfing list, you will continue to get hits. Congratulations! You beat television in at least a couple households. Myself, I think blogging will inevitably follow capitalist rules--that there will be a handful of "winners" at the top, and a whole slew of also-rans. So I suppose in the end, goal setting (who are you reaching?) is key. I like to set mine where success on the counter will be at the other end, so I stay hyper-local to Somerset County and Bridgewater, with some other general stuff thrown in so as not to sound like a Johnny One Note.

blaise k

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:28:25 -0500

"paris hilton, bazima, or bennifer"? hmm... i don't really know whether to feel grateful or insulted! xoxo b

Aaron

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:14:39 -0500

Give your site a personality, both in content and design. Your design should be somewhat different than the next. Don't use the default template, but change colors, fonts, etc. Likewise, put your name or a memorable alias on your site. If your readers can't remember you after they have left your site, then they probably won't return.

melly

Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:03:56 -0500

For no other reason than to possibly make some people jealous, I have to tell you that she made a pj harvey cd mix for me, and even kissed it. That's why rule #8 is so true. If you are nice enough, someday a beautiful new yorker will xoxo you.

jake

Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:32:02 -0500

yeah- i should probably get that checked out.

Jen

Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:28:38 -0500

I think there is a place for personal content, too, but I heard that a certain publisher pees blood when he reads blogs with TMI about the bloggers' personal lives. But I think he just has a urniary tract infection.

jake

Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:23:26 -0500

jeez, gothamist- you used to be cool- now you've gone all authoritarian on me. suckers! don't you think that some personal voice is acceptable in blogs? i mean, what are personal websites without personality?