"I am aboard. You may pull up the ladder now."

The blogosphere is a big, big place, and there is room for all types. Some like creating the memes. Others link to them because they find them clever. Still others find them silly and ignore them. It's all good.

Some like baseball, some like football. Some (like myself) enjoy both and appreciate the differences. It's all good (as long as you are not a Red Sox fan).

"Merit links" are always sought after but with so much content available, they can be hard to garner. Instalanches may increase regular readership but memes can do the same thing.

(Although I only have evidence of the latter...to date my blog has proven quite Instalanche proof!)

You know, James, all the examples you cited are from 2002. Two of them are humor items. I write humor on a regular basis. One was a Blogburst that I hosted at the specific request of the other Buffybloggers, as my site was the most highly trafficked. What's your point supposed to be, citing those links?

All I said was that I don't care for blogs that are primarily gimmicky, and that I prefer content over fluff. I'm really failing to see the point here.

I sure do know this, though: People are awfully prickly about any aspect of the blogosphere being criticized. And Aaron has an extremely thin skin.

I cited those posts because they were the ones you link from the bottom of the page as the highlights of your achives.

I'm not sure why humorous writing on Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the Incredible Hulk is any more of a "full-course meal" than the creative application of graphic arts skills to make a blog map or Monopoly take-off. I didn't link to the Monopoly thing because I thought it was rather weak--linking mainly to minor blogs that Aaron happened to like--but don't see anything particularly wrong with it.

Like everything else, a weblog gimmick has to add value. My Duck Hunt was a way to collect more Howard Dean-bashing posts than I could by myself. I thought a well-rounded, and sometimes humorous critique of Dean was needed. Some gimmicks are useful filters. For example, the Carnival of the Capitalists helps me find some great econ and biz thinking. Some gimmicks (the Letter of the Day and the Snark Hunt) I find useless to me.

What a good gimmick does it get you noticed. With the blogosphere growing, if we're not lucky enough to be on Glenn Reynolds' blogroll we have to find some way to get some attention.

Meryl,

I have no problem with a simple statement that explains what you prefer and why. The first paragraph that James quoted above did that but it also threw in a few zingers. Bringing up a recent successful gimmick (the monopoly board) as an example of a link which has no value to you could be taken as a knock on its author and those blogs it linked to. It could also be taken as merely a current example of what you are talking about. I'm more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in that situation.

However, the 'gimmicks' that James pointed out from your own blog are relevant in light of what you say in the next paragraph. Your statement "That’s how I’ve managed to achieve blogging status" seems weakened when your archives are examined. At some point, some of your achievement was made using gimmicks or humor or whatever you choose to call it.

I have no problem with that. I'm glad you have arrived where you are at and also hope it is not your final destination. It is natural for your blogging at this point to be much different than it was 2 years ago. In the same way it is natural for those 2 years behind you to experiment and find their own style.

Oh, for crying out loud. Get a room.

Actually, James, it's a cheap shot and a dishonest debating tactic. All you have to do is read my last week's archives for an example of the full range of my posts. By "full-course meal" I meant that you will find all sorts of things at my blog. Not just gimmicks. You're being overly cute by linking to those posts in that way, and I don't mean cute in a good way.

That's the last thing I expect from someone like you.

Meryl,

I think we're in agreement on the issue, then.

If all you're saying is that blogs that are nothing more than one gimmick after another aren't all that good, I agree. If you're saying that blogs must be all "serious writing" all the time, then I'd disagree.

"Actually, James, it's a cheap shot and a dishonest debating tactic." I'm not seeing the violation. Enlighten me. I don't have all cheap and dishonest rhetorical tricks memorized. It was not obvious that 'full course meals' refers to your entire blog and not individual posts. Metaphors can fail like that.

Was it cheap and dishonest to label links you think are merited (good writing) as merit links but dismiss links that others might think are merited (clever idea, good graphic)? Nah, it wasn't cheap or dishonest, just your opinion. I can't read your mind, but 'cheap and dishonest' sounds thin-skinned. You have a right to be proud of your work and its merits.

Blogging is supposed to be fun sometimes. James pointed out your fun stuff. And it is funny! Why is that cheap or dishonest?

Yours,
Wince