Monday, July 30, 2007

Rankings and other trivia

I don't agree with the conclusions Chris comes to in his discussion of the ranking Iain Dale is trying to create. While I entirely agree with most of what he says, the ranking won't be a reliable guide to the 'best blogs', I think it, and the associated book, should be welcomed for practical reasons:

Blogging is, for most people, better when there are a larger number of people doing it. There are huge network effects as more people blogging opens more channels. I, and most others I think, enjoy blogging most when there are people responding to my posts and when there are interesting posts to respond to. It is a curiously anti-social social activity but a social activity nonetheless.

Now, an initiative like Dale's can serve an important function as a book, and a ranking, are a fine way of drawing attention to blogging. Of raising its profile and in doing so introducing new people to the pasttime. If some of them turn out to be interesting writers my 'blogging life' will be improved. If I take part in the ranking, and encourage others of an intellectual disposition to do the same, that will strengthen the chances of the blogs listed being ones that I like and should make the book a more effective way of drawing people I want to engage with into the blogosphere.


Anonymous said...

You've got a point, in theory. However, I doubt whether Iain's book will give the blogosphere much publicity. Books published by Harriman House tend not to atract that much attention - I know whereof I speak on this.

Matthew Sinclair said...

The Bumper Book of Government Waste does alright.

CFD Ed said...

I doubt anyone will actually agree with the rankings anyway.

People will think ‘Why didn’t he include X, that is excellent’, or ‘No that one deserved better’, or ‘Far too generous with that’, etc.