Bridging the Gap: Not so bad Wednesday, May 31 8:10 PM
"Thus the blogs selected for analysis were established, English language, text-based blogs. An estimated 60% of the randomly selected blogs met these combined criteria. As we were primarily interested in active blogs, we also excluded any blogs that had not been updated within the two weeks prior to data collection; this resulted in the elimination of several additional blogs." (3-4)
"Basically, two major sorts of weblogs can be distinguished: diaries or personal journals and filters. Journals amount to approximately seventy percent of all blogs, and filters to about ten to fifteen percent ([Herring et al. 2004])." (Kolbitsch and Maurer, 190)
"The modal number of comments in individually authored blogs has been found to be zero " (Nardi et al., 46)
"A similar study finds that 40.4% of blog authors are under age 20 (Herring, Scheidt, Bonus, & Wright, 2004)." (Huffaker, 92).
"However, a recent study found that only 12.6% of currently active weblogs are filters, and 48.8% contain no links to other weblogs at all (Herring, Scheidt, Bonus & Wright, 2004)." (Herring et. al 2005, 1).
Thank you for include my dissertation on your list. I would like to change the final year for it. It was 2002 I presented the Diarios Públicos Mundos privados: diário íntimo como gênero discursivo e suas transformações na contemporaneidade.
I still have another article intitled: "Avaliação mediada e avaliada por computador: a inserção dos blogs como interface na educação". A link for it:http://www.abed.org.br/congresso2005/por/pdf/026tcc5.pdf
Well, 2002... that's a seat on the bandwagon well worth fighting for!
I've made the change. I'll add your other article (I can't read it, but it does have the word "blogs" right in the title), once I'm back on my own computer.
I'm flattered you're using my paper and congrats on finishing your thesis!:)
I have a few comments about your statements about my paper:
in your post you said "If there is indeed a fragmented blogosphere, one in which bloggers think of themselves as members of Xanga or Blogger, in which they try to write "LiveJournals" instead of merely "blogs," then blogosphere studies needs to pay more attention to the differences between platforms."
i think there is indeed a fragmented blogosphere, at least for livejournal users because we very much think of ourselves as separate from bloggers. As I argued in my paper, livejournal is a community embedded blogging practice and has a very different culture and demographic than other blogging services. Livejournal has a blogging element and a social networking element (I can list my friends) and I can control who sees what with friends filters. when i write on livejournal, it feels very different from writing on my movable type blog. I am writing to friends and starting a conversation. Danah boyd has written about this too: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/01/04/the_cultural_divide_between_livejournal_and_six_apart.html
I'd also like to mention that I think your citation of my paper is a bit out of context and does not accurately represent the true spirit of what I was saying. You said "Within blogosphere studies, there is considerable disagreement as to whether the blogger’s contruction of identity is a form of role-playing or an authentic attempt at mimesis. Some theorists have adopted apparently extreme positions: Raynes-Goldie, embracing postmodernism, suggests that “in this informational chaos, the question of truth is not really a useful one,”
I was not writing about identity construction on blogs, rather the use of blogs for the creation of knowledge. My point was that information is not useful because it is true, but because its relevant. I wasn't at all writing about identity and your quotation does not accurately reflect my opinion on identity construction on blogs.
Thanks for the commentary; I'm not completely sold yet, but I was actually using your work to make the case for a fragmented blogosphere in yet another essay and it's good to hear you agree.
I'm very sorry if I used your quote out of context; certainly I shouldn't have said you were "embracing postmodernism" when you're synthesizing aspects of both modernism and postmodernism in your description of LiveJournal as a knowledge-creation system.
However, it seemed to me that with diary weblogs (and I may only have this reading because it's been so long since I read your essay: I've been working with that pull-quote since October) the knowledge being created is primarily reader knowledge about the blogger. I could see someone making the case that the value of a blog like Belle de Jour doesn't stem from its (possible) truth but from its usefulness as a source of entertainment, or whatever you're getting from it (perhaps I'm taking "relevance" much too broadly here), and I guess I thought you were making that case.
You're not, as it turns out, and as I said I'm sorry for going against the spirit of the essay. I'll have to re-read it in a few days when things calm down around here (certainly I'm more interested now in what seems to be one of the only studies of a blog-publishing platform world within the blogosphere) but I'd be curious to hear how you've conceptualized blogger identity.
Is a reality-reflective blogger identity important because only true details about that identity are relevant, or is the blogger's identity removed from informational chaos you describe?
Having re-read the essay, I see that I did, in fact, go against its spirit.
Yet I still don't see why information and knowledge have to be as topical and depersonalized — in the sense that, although data is filtered through people here, it never seems to be about people — as you assume them to be for "Pulling sense." I think you could (and thought you did) draw the same conclusions even with a much broader definition of info/knowledge.