Well, there's this:
Clueless Ann. I don't expect to agree with your guest bloggers but I do expect them to at least blog about something worth reading once in a while. With all the under reported stories buzzing around the blogosphere how did Ann and Megan miss all of them? I can't remember the last time I saw an Instapundit where nothing was worth following up on.
Why's he picking on me (and Megan)? Why no mention of Michael? Sexist!
There's only about one message a day like that, actually. But that email does hint of the burden of being Instapundit. I'm not really feeling that burden myself, because I feel I've been called over to do my thing over there, not to imitate Glenn. I assume the way Glenn writes his blog is what he enjoys doing, but I would find doing that a full-time job, not an energizing avocation -- which is how I experience this blog.
Notice the emailer's notion that Instapundit exists to put a stamp of approval on stories. Blogs are talking about X and you haven't acknowledged it yet! There are an awful lot of political blogs that crank out generic posts, expressing the usual outrage in the same canned language. And yet somehow they feel entitled. Because there's a buzz. Look at me! I'm part of a swarm!
And yeah, I realize I'm acting like the very NYT I just tweaked over there.
पोस्ट्स
५ टिप्पण्या:
Maybe the reader is upset that you haven't linked to any nano-technology stories.
Maybe it's girl crush.
Everybody has a gripe. No one is satisfied. More proof that socialism will work.
Hmm, the reasoning seems to go like this: the only way a story is validated is for Glenn to endorse it, but since Glenn isn't arround to endorse anything, nothing is worthy, yet it is still your fault for not, well, being Glenn.
My guess is that if all the postings were under Glenn's byline, but actually being posted by you, Megan, Michael, etc. then there would have been no gripes about the lousy nature of the postings of late.
Steven: Thanks. Yeah, it's like How do I know what's real, without Glenn???
Tiger: re point #1: There's definitely a paradox there, saying everyone's talking about it and it's underreported.
re point #2: That style of linking is done to send traffic to the site. There's a way of linking where you copy the other person's writing and comment in such a way that most readers don't click on the link. I think Glenn wants to help other bloggers by sending them traffic. I've gotten both kinds of links on many occasions and I've very aware of the difference in how much traffic you get. The style of linking could easily make the difference between getting 600 and 6,000 visitors.
I agree with the problem of too cryptic of posts. Thank goodness the AnnPundit has not gone that route here.
What I like is when there is enough of an article for me to get an idea of whether or not I want to follow up and read the whole article or not. Maybe a paragraph or so. Here, we also often get some of Ann's analysis or comments too.
Of course, Glenn's priorities and ours are more than likely different. I really don't care that much if someone gets a lot of hits or not. Sure, this may negate some of the monetary angle for some sites, but, unfortunately, I don't really care.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा