>>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: periodic posts, RSS, and trackbacks. Those are
increasingly common attributes of sites many wouldn't consider blogs. What
about this Videoblogers Group's message board? I am sure most of us don't
consider it a blog, but it does have frequent posts and RSS.
>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.
Exactly, because "art" is completely subjective. It is a personal experience
that is different for every person. I just find it hard to put "blog" in the
same class.
-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.
