Re: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
Charles, I was rather hoping you'd respond to: >If you respond to this post, I'd love to see your answers to: >1) Can a website with periodic personal posts, but no RSS or trackbacks be >a blog? >2) What if it has periodic posts and RSS, but no trackbacks? >3) What if it is a television station website with periodically posted news >stories and an RSS feed? >4) How often is periodic? If someone fails to update their blog in two >weeks, does it stop being a blog? >David Yirchott wrote: >If there is a useful list of blog characteristics, shouldn't that equal >a >clearcut blogness test? > > >Can such a list be "clearcut" when items can have some of the >qualities and not all of them? If you have a list of characteristics, shouldn't you end up with a clearcut answer? If you cannot, then I would suggest that the list isn't good enough. Or there is no differentiation to be found. >Anyway, the true problem is that none of the items >on the list you've given is 1) required for a blog or 2) exclusive to a >blog. > > >That's how it is with most definitions as well. Do you think >"blog" is more ill-defined than "mother"? I disagree that most definitions fail in the same way. Also, I think we can both agree that "blog" is not as defined as mother. Things required for mother: female. Things exclusive to mother: has given birth; has taken legal guardianship of a child. >Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs? > >I'm still waiting to hear of these "many" blogs that aren't >running RSS + trackbacks. What is their number compared to those that >do? Remember, these words are description of reality, not axiomatic >constructs. If the vast majority of websites called "blogs" start using >a background color of #d5691a, that will become one of the defining >characteristics of blogs. This isn't about majority. This is about definition. The exception disproves the rule. If any blogs do not have RSS, then "blog" by definition cannot require RSS. It is like saying that the Toyota Camry is the most prevalent car, therefore a "car" by definition is required to be a Toyota Camry. >"I have a new blog." >"That's not a blog! It's only a 75% blog!" > >What would the other 25% be considered? What if a site scored 50%? At >what >level does one have a legitimate blog? > > > >At precisely the dividing line between Industrial and Techno, or when a >painting is considered Cubist, or a puppy becomes a dog. Ah, at a virtually indefinable moment it becomes a virtually indefinable entity called a "blog." I see. So, to recap: "Blog" cannot be defined Blogs have characteristics Those characteristics are not neither unique to blogs nor possessed by all blogs There is a checklist by which to check if a site is a blog There are -- as far as I can tell -- three criteria on that list upon which to judge blogness At an immeasurable point a site may slip below or achieve blogness Which, I suppose, sort of puts us back to the beginning. So, "blog" is either indefinable because it is: 1) Infinite and awesome and our tiny human brains and our petty language cannot begin to describe it. Like God, some might say. 2) Non-existent. Like God, some might say. So therefore, either way blog=God. Perhaps we should end this here and go worship our possibly non-existent master. :) -David YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
Charles HOPE wrote: > David Yirchott wrote: >> >> Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs? > > I'm still waiting to hear of these "many" blogs that aren't running RSS + > trackbacks. What is their number compared to those that do? Remember, these > words are description of reality, not axiomatic constructs. If the vast majority > of websites called "blogs" start using a background color of #d5691a, that will > become one of the defining characteristics of blogs. Even if a vast majority of sites start using a background color of #d5691a I'd never know it, because I read their RSS/Atom feeds in an application that does not apply such styles. ;) Also, I typically turn off trackbacks due to trackback spam, so I guess my 'website' is only '83% blog' Pete -- http://tinkernet.org/ videoblog for the future... YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
David Yirchott wrote: If there is a useful list of blog characteristics, shouldn't that equal a clearcut blogness test? Can such a list be "clearcut" when items can have some of the qualities and not all of them? Anyway, the true problem is that none of the items on the list you've given is 1) required for a blog or 2) exclusive to a blog. That's how it is with most definitions as well. Do you think "blog" is more ill-defined than "mother"? Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs? I'm still waiting to hear of these "many" blogs that aren't running RSS + trackbacks. What is their number compared to those that do? Remember, these words are description of reality, not axiomatic constructs. If the vast majority of websites called "blogs" start using a background color of #d5691a, that will become one of the defining characteristics of blogs. "I have a new blog." "That's not a blog! It's only a 75% blog!" What would the other 25% be considered? What if a site scored 50%? At what level does one have a legitimate blog? At precisely the dividing line between Industrial and Techno, or when a painting is considered Cubist, or a puppy becomes a dog. YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
RE: [videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
>>Hmmm I am not sure that I'd agree that "blog" is defined >>heuristically >>-- and if that were so, perhaps now it does mean all websites. Though, >>perhaps you could be more clear in what you mean (I think either you >>have >>the wrong word or I have the wrong definition). To me heuristically is >>like >>trial and error; solving a problem through discovery. > >Your search for clarity is exactly the issue here. I can empathize with >the desire, but natural language will simply not permit it. Charles, if you don't know, just say you don't know. ;) Seriously, while the psycholinguistic autopsy is interesting, I think we've gone a bit off track. I think the initial idea is just that there is no agreed upon definition of what a blog is -- and insofar as I can tell, we agree on that. However, I think you believe that to be the case due to a failure of natural language (isn't the vast majority -- virtually all save for base words such as "ma" [which many suggest is the sound an infant mimicking suckling makes] and onomatopoeia -- of language unnatural?) whereas I question whether there are any defining characteristics. I do find it interesting that at the same time you claim there can not be a definition, you are adamant that it has to have RSS and trackbacks. >As far as semantic drift is concerned, couldn't it have drifted enough >to >mean all websites? > > >No. It simply hasn't and I daresay it never will. However it's quite >possible that, increasingly, most new websites heretofore will >be blogs. I am curious how you know that semantic drift simply has not rendered "blog" as another word for website. And what seperates the new websites that are blogs from those that are not? Are you suggesting that *any* new website with periodic posts and an RSS feed *is* a blog? >And how are we to chart the drift if no initial >definition exists to serve as a starting point? > > >I gave you the initial definition and a canonical prototype: Robot >Wisdom. The initial definition you gave me was: "The term used to mean, very specifically, a periodic list of interesting links found on the web. The prototypical example remains Robot Wisdom. These days it is synonymous with the common features shared between several widely-used applications: periodic posts, rss, trackback pings." A list of intersting links found on the web sounds sort of like the Google example. The rest of it seems to indicate that a blog is not synonymous with a website that has periodic posts but no RSS. That will confuse many people who consider themselves legitimate bloggers, I think. If you respond to this post, I'd love to see your answers to: 1) Can a website with periodic personal posts, but no RSS or trackbacks be a blog? 2) What if it has periodic posts and RSS, but no trackbacks? 3) What if it is a television station website with periodically posted news stories and an RSS feed? 4) How often is periodic? If someone fails to update their blog in two weeks, does it stop being a blog? Wikipedia's entry for blog seems to claim RSS and trackbacks aren't necessary, for what it is worth. Also, it seems strange to me that something that cannot be described has technical requirements like RSS and trackbacks: content cannot be pinned down, look cannot be pinned down, ownership requirements cannot be pinned down, but it must have trackbacks? > And no current one is >available either. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression the >definitions I've seen recently are up-to-date. > > > >There is no > >clearcut blogness test, but there is a list of blog characteristics, > >and blogness is proportional to the number of them exhibited. RSS >feeds > >and trackbacks are certainly on that list. If there is a useful list of blog characteristics, shouldn't that equal a clearcut blogness test? Anyway, the true problem is that none of the items on the list you've given is 1) required for a blog or 2) exclusive to a blog. Are all current blogs without RSS not full blogs? "I have a new blog." "That's not a blog! It's only a 75% blog!" What would the other 25% be considered? What if a site scored 50%? At what level does one have a legitimate blog? >Yes, so is text, but again, just because a website has RSS and >trackbacks >and text doesn't make it a blog, does it? And if it is missing RSS and >trackbacks, does that mean it cannot a blog? > > >You've ignored what's been said here. "Blog" and "Mother" are sets of >stereotypical characteristics. Is item X a blog or a mother? The answer >is provided by the heuristic of checking off how many of those defining >characteristics are exhibited by X. The result of these processes are a >blogness score and a motherness score. Sure, the list checking is perception. But I've not heard anything that would disqualify a site as a blog. No RSS? No trackbacks? I think many people would disagree with that. I've only heard three things that would qualify it as a blog: p
[videoblogging] OT: Taxonomy (was:Claudio's figuring it out (was: Your oldest vlog entry))
David Yirchott wrote: >Peter is exactly right. Like almost all natural language words, "blog" >it is defined heuristically, not synthetically. (And that's indicated >by the semantic drift the term has enjoyed since 1997.) Hmmm I am not sure that I'd agree that "blog" is defined heuristically -- and if that were so, perhaps now it does mean all websites. Though, perhaps you could be more clear in what you mean (I think either you have the wrong word or I have the wrong definition). To me heuristically is like trial and error; solving a problem through discovery. Your search for clarity is exactly the issue here. I can empathize with the desire, but natural language will simply not permit it. As far as semantic drift is concerned, couldn't it have drifted enough to mean all websites? No. It simply hasn't and I daresay it never will. However it's quite possible that, increasingly, most new websites heretofore will be blogs. And how are we to chart the drift if no initial definition exists to serve as a starting point? I gave you the initial definition and a canonical prototype: Robot Wisdom. And no current one is available either. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am under the impression the definitions I've seen recently are up-to-date. >There is no >clearcut blogness test, but there is a list of blog characteristics, >and blogness is proportional to the number of them exhibited. RSS feeds >and trackbacks are certainly on that list. Yes, so is text, but again, just because a website has RSS and trackbacks and text doesn't make it a blog, does it? And if it is missing RSS and trackbacks, does that mean it cannot a blog? You've ignored what's been said here. "Blog" and "Mother" are sets of stereotypical characteristics. Is item X a blog or a mother? The answer is provided by the heuristic of checking off how many of those defining characteristics are exhibited by X. The result of these processes are a blogness score and a motherness score. Here you give several (or all) of the defining characteristics of motherness: Actually, a mother seems to me to be a female that has given birth and/or has taken legal guardianship of a child. Of course there are breakdowns to this as well: birth mother, adoptive mother, etc. But certainly not all women are mothers. However, if I am reading your post correctly it seems to me you may have blurred the line betweenn a definition and word usage, e.g. The Mother Of All Wars is not literally a mother -- same with a woman who cares for someone or something like it were her child. A mothering relationship doesn't seem to necessarily make a woman a mother. If we are to agree that the definition of blog is nebulous at best, just like the definition of art. Then that, to me, means two things: 1) we will never be able to define what a vlog is, and 2) just as art is a subjective term, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to interpret "blog" as just another word for website (which, again, I don't necessarily agree with). The term "art" is notoriously nebulous as its definition has been under concentrated attack by wave after wave of philosophers, critics, and "artists". Most words have not had to endure such brutal levels of definitional abuse. SPONSORED LINKS Individual Fireant Explains YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
