Blogging Is Raw
Increasingly I’ve been reading many people on the blogosphere talk about their posts as articles; to which all I have to say is that you’re talking out of your ass if that’s actually what you think you’re writing when you post something on your personal weblog. In my eyes it’s very simple because blogging is RAW. It’s not something that’s been polished and massaged by several people before it’s released out to the masses. I don’t write a blog post and send it off to my editor and make sure that I’ve got all my grammar (note: I’ve corrected my spelling mistake but know that I originally spelt it with an e, and 5minutes later Andrew picked it up..didn’t even have time to review my post myself this time round) in the right order or that I’ve put my post in a correct structure with a nice resolution or question at the end of it all.
It might take me absolute ages to write something (a few weeks or whatever) but even then I honestly can’t claim that the final post is an article. If you’ve ever written a report then you give it to someone else to look it through. They see what you’ve written, they comment on things that you would probably never pick up on. In the end oftentimes the final outcome is very different to what you originally had. Once again in my eyes if you go through this external editing process (and only then) can you claim the final written piece to be an article. Until you do that, it’s a blog post.
It’s raw and guess what, it’s what makes blogging that much more special. It’s people’s thoughts downloaded, most often without the polish. In my eyes the less polished it reads the more fun it actually is. I’m not saying that blogging has to be complete and utter drivel because otherwise I won’t read it. However if you do this blogging thing long enough you start to develop your voice. You being to explain yourself in a specific and unique way to YOU. No polish. Celebrate your rawness! Stop calling it an article.
…got all my grammer in the…
Ummm…shouldn’t that be “grammar”… ;-)
Other than that, you make a fair point. A blog is not a newspaper/magazine/journal, although the lengthy articles (yes, articles) and reviews that some people post you could see coming from one.
I write what’s on my mind, if only so it doesn’t sit in my brain and take up valuable (HA!) space… :-p
↓ Quote | 5/3/2006
Spelling mistakes and EVERYTHING is all part of blogging. And no it’s lengthy posts Andrew, length posts :).
↓ Quote | 5/3/2006
I’ll have to personally agree with you on this one.
However, the definition works for most blogs using this word; define:article reveals this:
bq. A piece of writing on a specific topic, by one or more authors, that forms an independent part of a periodical publication such as a journal or serial, magazine, or newspaper.
So in the end, the word “article” used to describe a blog entry is just as valid as “post”.
To be honest, I _think_ people using “article” to label their musings are merely doing so to push themselves to better the quality of their writings. To me, “article” emanates a quality that “post” doesn’t… which is also the main reason I (like you) think it’s wrong to use it for weblogs.
↓ Quote | 5/3/2006
Actually you’re right Joen, technically it could be described as an ‘article’. Maybe I should elaborate a bit more on my thoughts…nah then it might actually end up being an article, hic hic :).
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
I think I call my posts “articles” just because that’s what they’re labeled in Textpattern. While I certainly don’t think everything I write is “news-worthy,” I just call them that because it’s how they’re described in my CMS. In WordPress, they’re “posts,” so you’ll get more WP people describing them that way. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. :)
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
If your entry into publishing on the web comes after the reverse chronological posting of articles started getting called first a “web log” and later a “blog”, you might be using the term article with an intent to inflate ego or other reasons that justify your initial sentence. However, a bit of history might be in order here.
The term “post” actually *comes* from before the term “blog” or even “web log”. Back from when you “posted an article” to your site. I’ve been posting articles to sites since 1995.
Given that the term you object to *predates* the one you prefer, you might want to tone it down a notch. They’ve been articles for years and only “posts” for a blip in the middle of that.
Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. Lately I feel ancient online. I could very easily say that it’s a web site and we’ve been calling them that all along, so quit calling it a blog. It’s just a website.
It may be an unfinished article before the collaboration is complete, but it’s still an article. It may be a crappy article, but it’s still an article. It’s an article that gets posted.
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
And those that live in the past, fail to move forward. To be honest J, I guess to me it’s what is implied by someone calling it an article. It’s what’s currently implied by that term. Many who use it, and maybe that point didn’t come across as best as it should have (although Joen seemed to get me, but then again Joen and I see eye to eye on many things) is the fact that many who blog sometimes refer to what they write as articles as though they are of a higher quality than a post. That is effectively what I’m objecting about. The way article is implied in my eyes is taking away from the rawness. I like reading about people’s randomness. It’s part of what makes reading blogs fun. As Oscar Wilde said:
bq. My own business bores me to death. I prefer other people’s.
Yes we can argue semantics but that would be boring :).
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
Bit confritational maybe Khaled mate?
I have an articles category. I look on ‘articles’ in the blogging sense as a form of post that’s insightfull or for a reason rather than chatter.
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
Some say toe-may-toe, some say toe-mah-toe. I’d like to think that neither “article” nor “post” nor “entry” necessarily constitutes “talking out your ass.” Seems like you’re making a broad, sweeping assumption about people based on the word they choose to describe their writing. Pretty lame.
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
Nathan - Didn’t realise that’s how it was termed in TXP. I guess it’s not the word per say, but rather what some people imply because of that word that made me sit up and think.
Zach - Yeah I tend to go off on one every once in a while. Rarely is it directed at the blogosphere. Sometimes chatter is good though, always depending on how you write it and your voice.
Jared - And what assumption would that be Jared? Things that you post on your site in my eyes are not the same as those to be published in a magazine or book. They’re very different. In this statement I’m not saying the quality is worse or better, I’m saying it’s different and that’s what makes it special. I’m saying you should be proud of what you’re writing and not try and sugar coat it to make it seem like something with more credibility. You see if I was writing an article that first line would have been edited because I’m being far too confrontational, being rude or whatever. I’m not sure how I’m being lame by saying people should be proud of what they write, no matter how they write it. You might not agree with my language, but that’s not going to change any time soon.
Some might even have kept that line in there because it brings a rise in people because it polarises straight away.
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
Damn right - eventhough I’ve just posted an ‘article’ to my journal last night.
My other posts are all firmly in the ‘post’ category however.
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
In your words, “you’re talking out of your ass if that’s actually what you think you’re writing when you post something on your personal weblog.”
You assume that people who use the word “article” are trying to “sugar coat it to make it seem like something with more credibility” or “many who blog sometimes refer to what they write as articles as though they are of a higher quality than a post.” You’re tearing down people who chose to use the word “article” to describe their online writing based on your own limited definition of the word “article”, and that’s lame.
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
Why are you ignoring my explanation to you? My problem isn’t just with the word, it’s actually what is associated with that word. The mentality is what I’m actually more interested in, not so much changing, but bringing attention to.
Part of the reason for writing this, and maybe I should have made it clearer, but alas that’s what the comments are for, to promote discussion, is because I hate people belittling their own interests. Often it comes in a manner you don’t actually realise. It’s as though you’re embarassed by your writing, your hobby, the music you listen to etc. And effectively that is where I’m coming from.
If you understood that I was belittling people with my comments, then I’m sorry but you’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick here. You’ve seriously misinturpreted what I’m trying to say here, which is cool, it’s part of the problem about communicating ideas, sometimes they don’t reach their destinations as you would have wanted them to.
My post was only meant to bring about awareness. Awareness that I feel people might be belittling themselves by refering to their writing as ‘articles’ with EVERYTHING that that word IMPLIES to ME. I’ve talked about what I think that word when used in context implies so no need to reiterate here again.
You might say “Well Khaled you asshole, you’ve understood it the wrong way, you’re view is limited and lame” (you didn’t say the asshole part but I’ll help a brother out :) ); and you might be correct in YOUR assumption, however this is MY assumption and I have chosen to comment on it.
To all those that read my comments the way Jared did and got personally offended (as I’m ASSUMING he has by his comments) then I apologise but that’s not how I meant them. My comments were meant as a ‘Hey guys CELEBRATE YOUR BLOGGINESS.’
Blogging is a very different style of writing to other writing on the web. It’s still meandering to find it’s voice in the world. It’s getting there, but we shouldn’t try and kill it at the knees before it’s stood up.
↓ Quote | 6/3/2006
Khaled, I get what you’re saying. I just think it was done with a narrow train of thought and an generally insulting tone. No matter, I’m actually not offended. Carry on.
↓ Quote | 7/3/2006
I actually have somebody checking my longer posts before I publish them, but that’s mostly because I’m no native english speaker. But then, my longer posts are translations of an actual article that will appear in german in April (print!).
This generalization has it’s limitations like any other…
↓ Quote | 9/3/2006
I agree blogs are personal opinions, sites have articles, funny thing is I have seen many templates with the word articles hardcoded in. :-) Anyways time 4 bed happy bloggin blogospherians!
↓ Quote | 10/4/2006