Marc Velazquez of Spudlets reacts to various posts on the nature of blogging. He argues that the conventional wisdom that one must post regularly to get consistent readers is wrong.

[Blogging] gives me the chance to practice my writing that a diary never could. For those who have been at it awhile, go back to your archives and see how your writing has (hopefully) progressed.

While a few “A-list” bloggers will get heavy traffic and lotsa link love, many of us stay near the banks of the raging Web/blogosphere stream, catching some tidbits now and then, passing them along, and enjoying the company of our neighbors. Bottom line: if you can make a few friends and every once in a while someone gives you a positive comment on a post, you’re doing well. Anything more is gravy. Trying to join the big boys (and girls) in the fast waters can be precarious, and usually unsuccessful unless you are a fine writer with a good amount of time on your hands. Point #3 is the key – you can only get out of it what you put in, and as you develop relationships in the blogosphere you can be rewarded with good friendships.

I’m not sure that this refutes the “blog regularly” notion, but it makes sense otherwise.

(Hat tip: Terry Oglesby)

FILED UNDER: Blogosphere,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. If you do get in the deep waters and get to a level of “big boy” (or girl) then you can post irregularly (i.e. Steven Green). Of course you can’t go irregular until you get to that status level. Kind of ironic isn’t it?

  2. James Joyner says:

    Yep. And even Stephen dropped several notches on the Ecosystem as a result. He was in the Top 10 once upon a time. But, yeah, it takes a long time to build readership and loyalty.

  3. Paul says:

    I have continuously found it odd that “blog success” is not defined by traffic or readers but by links.

    To me that is a rather odd metric. What if someone is a “link whore” and spends more time farming links then producing contend? Does that make then a good blooger, a good writer or a good salesperson?

    I’ll skip the explanation but you learn early on in psychology classes that one way to increase traffic would be to post things peopler really wanted to read but to do it on an erratic schedule.

    By nature most bloggers post which such a schedule which, I think, is one of the reasons blogging is so “additive” for many. It is like slot machines for people who read fast.