Welcome to metayada, a blog devoted to rambles on all things meta.
Marc suggested this as the first blog entry, and I like it. So here we go.
"What kinds of things should be posted as blog entries vs posted as comments?"
[As a side note, you might wonder why I'm posting Marc's question. Well, for one, I want to start generating some content, but also, suffering most likely from a mild form of OCD I meticulously keep every email in my inbox until it has been "processed". An email with Marc's idea has been sitting very comfortably in my inbox for more than three weeks now, causing me major sleeplessness, headaches and fatigue. Until now. There, it's gone. In Trash. Not a to-do anymore.]
Back to Marc's question. I'm not sure whether I should answer it here in the entry or in the comment. Am I allowed to comment on my own entry?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is pretty simple -- a post is a new topic that does not reference something within the existent scope of the blog; a comment is an entry that directly references/responds-to/builds-upon/refutes an entry on the blog (whether thats a post, or another comment). Length is irrelevant.
Now the more interesting theoretical point is, if a blog is supposed to be organized around a general theme/conceptual framework then shouldn't all new entries, at some point, just be comments? And if not, was the state mission of the blog just not correctly established, and hence the ad-hoc adoption of new topics a violation of the purpose of the blog? Should these entries be even considered "posts" or just random hijacks? If we disallow such posts, do all new entries just become comments?
In fact, if the goal of separating posts/comments is simply to highlight the tree structure of thought on a blog, shouldn't blogs be displayed as visual trees? Wouldn't that make more sense?
And what happens, if we then make posts/comments mutable -- can we then arrive at a situation, that due to an edit, we now have not a tree but a cyclical graph?
Post a Comment