When I first set up my Site Meter on this blog page, I was receiving about 30 visitors per day and 50 page views. As I become more diligent about posting something every day, the stats built up to an average of 50 visitors per day and 100 page views, and stayed fairly consistent for months!
Merely going away on a week's vacation, the stats fell back to an average of 30 visitors per day and 50 page views. While the "By referrals" stats still show an amazing, often bizarre array of search terms that surfers use to end up at my site, it's the frequency of updates, not just content, that seems to draw the crowds.
The lesson, therefore, is definitely "... if you blog, they will come!" (Quote adapted from the movie, "Field of Dreams".) But to what extent does that mean I can just blab on about anything? And just how important is the quality/noteworthiness of the content?
Showing posts with label noteworthiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label noteworthiness. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
"Political Correctness is Intellectual Facism"
Sounds a bit heavy for this particular blogpage, I know, but an incident today certainly clarified several of my random thoughts into one big... well, I dunno. Mmmm, did I say "clarified"? I guess I'm still working through it.
Firstly, it's the now well-worn chestnut of people seemingly choosing to misinterpret the motives of innocent posts on the Internet. I'm quite up-front that there's an awful lot of "ego-boo" (to use a very 70s fannish term) when I share my seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of Star Trek trivia. I do get a buzz out of it. And if I didn't share it, I'd have no excuse for saving all those issues of "Starlog", "Star Trek Communicator", "Cinefex" and "Cinfantastique".
Secondly, the Australian sense of humour (and, indeed, our unique brand of, umm, sarcasm) does not translate well on the Internet. If it wasn't for those little winking icons, I'd be totally sunk. ;) Sometimes it doesn't matter how carefully I prune a post, I'll wind up being accused of being deliberately: pompous; a know-it-all; egotistical (okay, I know I'm that, I just admitted as much); demeaning; abrasive... And so on.
Thirdly, I do know that the blame for ineffective communication falls upon the sender, not the receiver. But gee, scrutinizing every post for every possible permutation of misinterpretation does take away the spontaneity of posting to a Star Trek mailing list while eating breakfast.
Finally, I go back to two comments from last week's meeting of the Sydney Weblogger Meetup Group: the aforementioned quote by Steve Noble ("If you want to be noted by a particular audience... be noteworthy"), and another PR person's comment, when quoting a speaker at a conference about using new technologies, that if a blog entry wasn't confrontational to someone, then it wasn't really a blog, it was just a home page.
Yesterday, on a e-mailing list to which I belong, a question was asked about amateur Star Trek fan films. It seems that a recent, well-regarded fan film actually kills off a major character, whom fans know already survives into the Star Trek feature film series. So, my e-pal asked innocently enough, why weren't the fan films constrained to follow the official "Star Trek" canon?
As someone who's written many a fanzine story, and as an actor in an episode of Starship Exeter (not the fan film series in question, though), I answered thusly:
"Umm, because it's a work of fiction, based on TOS, but not the movies?
"Umm, because it wasn't produced by the copyright holder, so it's not a canonical episode.
"Umm, because no one dies in science fiction?
"Umm, because it's an alternative universe story?
"Just four of hundreds of possible answers."
That's written exactly as I thought it - no malice intended - but, in hindsight, it seems it was not the wisest way to write it. (Unless, perhaps, if I'm trying 'to be noted by a particular audience', some may suggest?) The person my answer was directed at took no offense to my comments - and, indeed, we'd had numerous very funny back-and-forth emails about several topics, fan films included, following that original first post.
But, this morning, all Hell broke loose (again). I read this comment, from Chris, another poster to the e-list:
"I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said 'Political Correctness is Intellectual Facism'. I happen to agree with that statement. The world is waaaaaay too over-sensitive about everything these days.
"I didn't read Ian's post as demeaning at all. I actually appreciated the sarcasm and saw it for what it was. It was witty and at the same time it made me think about why it [the fan film] would or would not be canonical.
"It would have been a very different thing if his response had been: 'You're an idiot. Duh!' Now THAT'S demeaning. But it wasn't.
"If we have arrived at the day in which sarcasm is no longer an acceptable vehicle for human expression, then I, for one, am extremely saddened.
"To Ian: you on keep writing, I'll keep reading."
(Permission to quote requested and received; thanks Chris.)
How cool is that? Until Chris mentioned the issue, I had no idea my previous post had been the subject of a dissection - and branded as "demeaning". I told the complainer, who'd leapt to the original posters's defence, "Please reread my post with a laconic Aussie accent and you'll see I was being my usual, bouncy, positive, gregarious (but obviously not humorous at all) self. Think maybe Mel Gibson without the alcohol. And the good looks. And the fortune in Californian real estate. And all those kids."
But hey, maybe I'm not "demeaning", "pompous", "a know-it-all" or "egotistical" at all - just "noteworthy"!?
I know I've complained about a lack of comments to my entries here before, and I don't - as yet - have a monitoring tool on the page to check out who's looking and how they found me, but - as a measure of reassurance - I received two really great emails today, from distant "Star Trek" colleagues who say they read this blog with interest "every day"! Way cool. Or k3wl even.
Firstly, it's the now well-worn chestnut of people seemingly choosing to misinterpret the motives of innocent posts on the Internet. I'm quite up-front that there's an awful lot of "ego-boo" (to use a very 70s fannish term) when I share my seemingly encyclopedic knowledge of Star Trek trivia. I do get a buzz out of it. And if I didn't share it, I'd have no excuse for saving all those issues of "Starlog", "Star Trek Communicator", "Cinefex" and "Cinfantastique".
Secondly, the Australian sense of humour (and, indeed, our unique brand of, umm, sarcasm) does not translate well on the Internet. If it wasn't for those little winking icons, I'd be totally sunk. ;) Sometimes it doesn't matter how carefully I prune a post, I'll wind up being accused of being deliberately: pompous; a know-it-all; egotistical (okay, I know I'm that, I just admitted as much); demeaning; abrasive... And so on.
Thirdly, I do know that the blame for ineffective communication falls upon the sender, not the receiver. But gee, scrutinizing every post for every possible permutation of misinterpretation does take away the spontaneity of posting to a Star Trek mailing list while eating breakfast.
Finally, I go back to two comments from last week's meeting of the Sydney Weblogger Meetup Group: the aforementioned quote by Steve Noble ("If you want to be noted by a particular audience... be noteworthy"), and another PR person's comment, when quoting a speaker at a conference about using new technologies, that if a blog entry wasn't confrontational to someone, then it wasn't really a blog, it was just a home page.
Yesterday, on a e-mailing list to which I belong, a question was asked about amateur Star Trek fan films. It seems that a recent, well-regarded fan film actually kills off a major character, whom fans know already survives into the Star Trek feature film series. So, my e-pal asked innocently enough, why weren't the fan films constrained to follow the official "Star Trek" canon?
As someone who's written many a fanzine story, and as an actor in an episode of Starship Exeter (not the fan film series in question, though), I answered thusly:
"Umm, because it's a work of fiction, based on TOS, but not the movies?
"Umm, because it wasn't produced by the copyright holder, so it's not a canonical episode.
"Umm, because no one dies in science fiction?
"Umm, because it's an alternative universe story?
"Just four of hundreds of possible answers."
That's written exactly as I thought it - no malice intended - but, in hindsight, it seems it was not the wisest way to write it. (Unless, perhaps, if I'm trying 'to be noted by a particular audience', some may suggest?) The person my answer was directed at took no offense to my comments - and, indeed, we'd had numerous very funny back-and-forth emails about several topics, fan films included, following that original first post.
But, this morning, all Hell broke loose (again). I read this comment, from Chris, another poster to the e-list:
"I saw a bumper sticker yesterday that said 'Political Correctness is Intellectual Facism'. I happen to agree with that statement. The world is waaaaaay too over-sensitive about everything these days.
"I didn't read Ian's post as demeaning at all. I actually appreciated the sarcasm and saw it for what it was. It was witty and at the same time it made me think about why it [the fan film] would or would not be canonical.
"It would have been a very different thing if his response had been: 'You're an idiot. Duh!' Now THAT'S demeaning. But it wasn't.
"If we have arrived at the day in which sarcasm is no longer an acceptable vehicle for human expression, then I, for one, am extremely saddened.
"To Ian: you on keep writing, I'll keep reading."
(Permission to quote requested and received; thanks Chris.)
How cool is that? Until Chris mentioned the issue, I had no idea my previous post had been the subject of a dissection - and branded as "demeaning". I told the complainer, who'd leapt to the original posters's defence, "Please reread my post with a laconic Aussie accent and you'll see I was being my usual, bouncy, positive, gregarious (but obviously not humorous at all) self. Think maybe Mel Gibson without the alcohol. And the good looks. And the fortune in Californian real estate. And all those kids."
But hey, maybe I'm not "demeaning", "pompous", "a know-it-all" or "egotistical" at all - just "noteworthy"!?
I know I've complained about a lack of comments to my entries here before, and I don't - as yet - have a monitoring tool on the page to check out who's looking and how they found me, but - as a measure of reassurance - I received two really great emails today, from distant "Star Trek" colleagues who say they read this blog with interest "every day"! Way cool. Or k3wl even.
Friday, January 19, 2007
To be noted, be noteworthy
Last night I attended a meeting of the Sydney Weblogger Meetup Group, hosted by Sara, aka The Bargain Queen. The venue was Paddy Maguire's Pub in the city.
I enjoyed meeting everyone and it was great to see the conversations flow so easily, despite the amazing variations in our blog content and scope. Several of the "professional bloggers" work in public relations, and it was enlightening to hear how savvy PR people so quickly embraced blog technology when it came along.
At my count there were eleven attendees, although more might have turned up after I raced for my train. I know a few of the bloggers had met before, some only by email but others face-to-face, but this newbie was made to feel quite at home in no time at all. I am looking forward to exploring the blogs of other attendees over the next few days/weeks, and to seeing everyone at the next meeting. Thanks for organising the event, Sara.
The tip of the evening came from Steven Noble, who writes a blog called Elbow Grease: Getting Results in PR & Digital Communication. Steve told us, "If you want to be noted by a particular audience, the first step is to ask how you, in their eyes, can be noteworthy."
Mmmmm. Interesting...
I enjoyed meeting everyone and it was great to see the conversations flow so easily, despite the amazing variations in our blog content and scope. Several of the "professional bloggers" work in public relations, and it was enlightening to hear how savvy PR people so quickly embraced blog technology when it came along.
At my count there were eleven attendees, although more might have turned up after I raced for my train. I know a few of the bloggers had met before, some only by email but others face-to-face, but this newbie was made to feel quite at home in no time at all. I am looking forward to exploring the blogs of other attendees over the next few days/weeks, and to seeing everyone at the next meeting. Thanks for organising the event, Sara.
The tip of the evening came from Steven Noble, who writes a blog called Elbow Grease: Getting Results in PR & Digital Communication. Steve told us, "If you want to be noted by a particular audience, the first step is to ask how you, in their eyes, can be noteworthy."
Mmmmm. Interesting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
