What Is The Definition Of A Blog?

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

1. Kevin Burton
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:05 pm

   You can comment about the post on your own blog…..

   The problem is that comments on such a large blog would end in a flame war……..

2. Michael Arrington
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:07 pm

   I note that Yahoo allows comments on their blogs. With comment moderation things can be kept under control. One this blog, comments are a big net positive, even when things degenerate into a mud pit.

3. Anita
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:15 pm

   Kevin’s got it right … on HUGE blogs (with millions of flame prone readers), comments end up not making sense. I’ve always considered a blog any online journal with relatively frequent, dated, updates. Within this level, I view there being multiple levels:

   1. Online Private Diary - with very limited access by outside readers
   2. Online Shared Diary - no comments, but open to any reader … sites like Google would fall in here
   3. Interactive Blog - limited set of writers, but almost anyone can comment (with/without moderation)
   4. Fully Open Journal - anyone can write posts, anyone can comment. I haven’t seen too many sites like this, probably because the quality may degrade quickly (and also because it could end up not being much different than a forum.

   Best wishes to all of you,
   Anita

4. Michael Arrington
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:18 pm

   Well, I point again to the fact that Yahoo allows comments quite successfully, and we seem to be having a fairly constructive discussion here in the comments to this blog. And we definitely have “millions of flame prone readers” too.

5. Robert Dewey
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:18 pm

   I say comments are not a requirement. A blog is a “web log”… As with any other log files, does there need to be a comment in order to consider it a “log”? Nope.

   However, I do have a dislike for blogs that block comments - it’s pointless. My belief is that there are two reasons for blocking comments: 1) The blogger is self conscious about what people might think of their opinion or 2) the blogger doesn’t know how to turn on comments.

   I vote for option one.

6. Bryan Murley
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:19 pm

   Comments have never been a requirement for something to be a weblog - and this debate comes up every so often.

   There are scads of higher-ranking blogs that don’t allow comments - Instapundit was an early prominent example of one who eschewed comments.

   And at some larger blogs, comments become more of a hassle because of length. The average comment thread at Little Green Footballs back in 2002 - to use but one example of many had something like 300+ comments. Who’s going to read through all that?

   That said, I think comments are a net positive.

7. Michael Arrington
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:22 pm

   Perhaps I should add a third option that deals with the gray area.

8. Michael Arrington
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:25 pm

   Ok, added a third option which is probably going to change the outcome of the results. But it will yield interesting data.

9. Robert Dewey
   

   December 31st, 2006 at 3:25 pm

   “Who’s going to read through all that?”

   Just to throw it out there - I do. I enjoy reading other people’s opinions, and can easily skip over the flame posts. Luckily, TechCrunch doesn’t seem to have a ton of flamers or spammers.

   Half of the fun reading a blog is reading how people respond. I have connected with quite a few interesting people via blogs.

10. Pat Phelan
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    No comments, no blog
    I have always appreciated that you left comments on even when you were getting flamed Mike.

11. Robert Dewey
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:29 pm

    ^^ Agree with Pat Phelan

    Nothing pisses me off more than a blogger that can spend hours writing a post, but can’t take a few minutes to join the discussion. Again, another positive aspect of TechCrunch.

12. dak
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    And if I strictly moderate comments to ensure that only those comments that agree with my message are posted, do I still have a blog by your reasoning?

    I don’t see how comments are essential for ensuring the communication and community aspect of blogging. As Kevin Burton points out, you can still respond on your own blog — which you can start on your own, for free, in a matter of minutes. That’s the real power and beauty of the medium, isn’t it?

    Anyway, changing the definition just complicates things without any benefit. Many very popular blogs do not allow comments; do they cease to be blogs if this distinction is enshrined? Or do we just create a bunch of heat and no light arguing over a distinction without a major difference?

13. Allen Stern
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:40 pm

    You can click on my name to read my whole post about this but a couple of points:

    1. Is the easiest way to define whether something is a blog is based on the tool used? For example, if you use Wordpress, blogger, MoveableType then you are automatically “blogging”?

    2. What about video blogs? I show an example of Amanda on ABC vs. Charles Gibson on ABC. Which is the video blog and which is the Webcast? I think they have it reversed.

    But the bottom line is that “blog” is the hot and most overused word of 2006. Everything is a blog. Because it gets you street cred. If Amanda started her show by saying, “Welcome to my webcast” or “Welcome to my video show” - would she not get the same buzz as “Check out Amanda’s new video BLOG” - see what I mean?

    Same thing as everyone wanting to wear the new Jordans back in the day. Cool = blog.

14. paul king
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:41 pm

    This was the year that some in the major media started to refer to the DrudgeReport as a blog… If that were the case we’d all have to credit Drudge for the creation of blogs - because he’s been around longer than the term itself.

    That being said, if Drudge were to ever open himself up to community and true blogging he would be by far the largest blog on the net and his community would be among the largest.

15. Robert Dewey
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Why would you moderate out comments that don’t agree with your train of thought? People need to open up more and other opinions need to be heard - THAT’S the real power of the new “medium”. Debate is healthy… Just delete the spam posts. As Mike has already said, Yahoo doesn’t seem to have a problem, nor does this very blog we are commenting on.

    It’s ironic that some of you are commenting when you could just create a new post about it in your blog

16. Zoli Erdos
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Dak, I agree that strict moderation to filter out disagreement is pointless. Moderation to maintain civility makes sense; debate is OK. But I disagree with your view on comments in general (btw, I was the bogger that started the “this is not a blog” theme…). Not all blog-readers are active bloggers themselves. Even those who are may find it better/ quicker/easier to fire off a quick comment. There is a reason you left a comment here, not on your own blog. Even though I have my own blog an wrote on the subject,  it’s easier and more logical to respond to you here than over there.

    It’s actually ironic that those who don’t find comments esssential are commenting themselves

17. Michael Arrington
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    Allen - you get street cred by saying you are a blogger? I get blank stares.

18. Matthew Hurst
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    The connection between blogs and ‘conversation’ is often brought up, but the truth of the blogosphere is that the ‘conversation’ that takes place is nothing like the conversations that people have. There are many blogs that post something - often with a provocative title - allow comments, but never respond to comments or to posts that link to or trackback them. Ironically, I see some of the most ‘influential’ blogs writen by marketing types that are guilty of this - heralding the new world while failing to really implement it.

19. Mike Watson
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    I often asked my self that question. Why am I not able to participate, I don’t quite get it. I wonder what kind of traffic those types of blogs get, versus the conventional ones?

    What’s Hot Today.com
    Tell us what’s hot today………

20. Allen Stern
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:48 pm

    I was using it as a generic but yea - how do you think I get all the women? LOL

    So is it comments that makes something a blog? Hypothetically, if we go back to my early days say ‘96, I posted lots of tutorials and commentary on HTML. Never once then nor now would I classify that site as a blog.

    To me, Seth’s “blog” is really more like a long book. Google’s is probably more of a company announcement page. And as Seinfeld would say… there is nothing wrong with that.

    I will say this… if you turn comments on, and don’t post comments that disagree with your thoughts, then you should never have had them on in the first place. (I do think you should always delete “illegal” type comments.)

21. Allen Stern
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:49 pm

    Oh yea - and I think for x amount of time after a post goes up, the writer should be ready willing and able to reply to comments. There is nothing worse than a writer who does “hit and run” posting - If you can’t spend the time to reply to other’s thoughts, don’t post.

    Isn’t it all about conversation today?

22. Zaid Farooqui
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 3:50 pm

    In the long run, every page on the Internet will be called a blog entry. Each YouTube video may be a form of a blog entry by the user.

    From little philosophy I got from phil101, a better question may be defining stuff that blatantly ISN’T a blog? But that’s equally as difficult.

    One overlarging separation we CAN make is that a blog isn’t a tool in the Internet sense. For example, google.com is not a blog. Monster.com isn’t a blog.

    Secondly, I think we can do another level of separation by emphasizing the importnce of date/time. Most web pages that are not blogs do not post a date/time. Almost all blog entries contain a timestamp.

    Thirdly, we can safely say Wikipedia isn’t a blog because we can say a blog must be owned by ONE private entity(or can we?) such as a group of friends or a corporation–not random strangers.

    This still leaves a lot of other stuff up for debate such as YouTube, Flickr and the likes. What if YouTube starts pinging Technorati for each video it gets?

    Enough of psychological roundrobin for me. But this is definitely a question we’ll be debating to hell in coming times. Geez it’s been more than a decade since the Internet was invented(by Al Gore shh!) and we’re still having fights about what constitutes a pageview and a hit when doing metrics. Don’t expect this to be solved anytime soon:)

    -Zaid

23. BillSaysThis
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    In a perfect world blogs would generally allow moderated comments. This not being a perfect world, as a practical matter most bloggers do not have the time to weed out spam and other trash even for business (that is, official company) blogs. Companies like Yahoo can afford to have staff do this (and surely Google could as well) and small dedicated ventures like the TechCrunch and GigaOm networks have to as part of the business model; conversely Dave Winer for many years didn’t have comments and one can hardly claim Scripting.com was not a blog during this period.

    So I think comments are desirable but not necessary. For commenters here who insist otherwise I would say, politely, put up or shut up, that their sentiment is nice but unless they’re willing to contribute significantly to the salary of bloggers they read and want to add comments its not meaningful. For example, “Nothing pisses me off more than a blogger that can spend hours writing a post, but can’t take a few minutes to join the discussion.” People who want to make a conversation can easily enough set up their own blogs.

24. j-beezy
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:07 pm

    Here’s my take on the definition of a blog…please excuse the formalness…:

    A blog is really just software and hardware. That is, a blog is a user interface, database and hardware (server, etc.). This software and hardware together make up a platform. Combine this platform with a URL and a blog becomes a physical location on the internet. What does this sound like…yup that’s right…a good ‘ole fashion website.

    So, why the name blog? One can consider the word “Blog” as a mental cue for a brand or product category of sorts, like Cadillac and Toyota or full-size and compact. A “website” typically includes a plethora of functionality and features for both the admin and user. Websites by nature are robust platforms, i.e. the full-size Cadillac Escalade, where as the Blog platforms are essentially scaled down, easy use and easy to learn content management systems. Blog platforms are like a reliable, point A to point B, nice but not flashy, compact Toyota.

    However, in practice, a blog has become a metaphorical “platform” for people to publish ideologies, thoughts, feelings, musings, commentary and analysis about a single or multiple topics of interest.

    Blogs facilitate the inherent need for self-expression in humans. For many people a blog serves a practical need to chronicle and share personal and collective interests, life experiences and the world around them. In the U.S. blogs also facilitate the exercise of “freedom of speech”.

    Generally speaking, blogs are a communal place. However, the core concept of blogging is “self” expression (self-publishing) but the flexibility and open source nature of blog technology allow for interactive components such as comments and trackbacks to be incorporated into many platforms.

25. jimmy
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    you just want to hate on google s’more

26. Darrin
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    I think there is a difference between “Company Blogs” & “Social Media” generated by “YOU” blogs.

    Company Blogs - to be able to jump on the band-wagon, PR, branding, rather than be left behind so they “innovate - blogs” do not really need “Commenters.” However, commenters will give a true opinion of what people think of a company’s brand & the company itself.

    Social Media - “YOU-Blogs”- We can break down these type of blogs in many ways, but lets just stick to two. 1. Creative Outlet & 2. Creative Outlet towards entrepreneurship. In both respects, I think commenters are needed. In the first one, commenters are really”NOT” sought after, however, are hoped for. Commenters would include their freinds, family, or enthusiasts that are interested in that blog of interest.

    In the 2nd case, “Creative Outlet Towards Entrepreneurship”, there is a target market of influencers, readers, subscribers, “commenters” in mind. With that target market, therefore, is justification for opportunities to monetize where the entrepreneur sees fit - whether it be products, services, etc. The initial goal is to achieve a business status, knowing full well there is no guarantee, however, its worth the challenge given a BLOG is like pure freedom.

    The goal for their personal creative outlet may rely on comments. Perfect example is a blog with multiple commentors & that blog does not generate no revenue, however, the blogger seeks to generate revenue.
    In sum, the “Definition” I think of a true Blogger is deeper today for the ones that know about it. MY definition of Blog/Blogger is the following:
    An outlet of quality in a person or society’s perception, independent tastes and judgements expressed to the masses and embraced by an individual or group. It’s a stage to allow the potential of “true” freedom of speech through the advocacy of a individual, group, race, group or class.

    Blogging….Is a Lifestyle

    But hey, I might be wrong…..Might just be a webpage with some words…

27. Bryan Murley
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    Drudge has emphatically maintained all along that he was not a blogger - and viewed the term with some disdain.

    The matter of definition is a tricky one, but there should be certain things that one could look at to define what is or is not a “blog.” I prefer to stick with things that are common to the platform, most notably: a frequently updated web page with entries in reverse chronological order that are individually linkable. That’s about as broad a definition as you can get. Everything else - tags, comments, blogrolls, trackbacks, rss feeds, etc. is window-dressing, really.

    What Mike seems to be hinting at is more the “verb” aspect of blogging (as opposed to the “noun” aspect I describe above). We normally expect someone who “blogs” to engage in two-way communication. Most often, this is done in comments, but sometimes it is done through e-mail (as used to be the case with Instapundit or Doc Searls) and sometimes through trackbacks or closely following referral logs. If someone isn’t engaging in two-way conversation at all, then that person is not really “blogging,” even though the web site might qualify as a “blog.”

28. Louis Choquel
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    As a small blog, started a few month ago, I would just say that I’m sincerely hoping to get more comments on the stuff I post.

29. Bryan Murley
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    And I voted #1 before you added the third option, but I agree with #3 more.

30. Darrin
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    Wait a minute….It’s 7pm Eastern Standard Time.

    I at least hope we are ushuring in the New Year “Blogging” with at least a glass of Champagne in one hand. Typing with one index with the other.

31. Santiago
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    Techcrunch = Googlecrunch. I find myself actually hoping Pay Per Post does something noteworthy to break the monotony

32. James
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:25 pm

    Call it what you want, but the places that I’m most likely to frequently return to DO allow comments — especially comments not requiring a login. And isn’t traffic on a website the name of the game? I think so.

    IMHO, if you’re going to put your thoughts on whatever “out there,” then have the balls to let people comment. This doesn’t necessarily apply to the folks writing about their dog or doing a “dear diary” type of blog, but the more “commercial” ones definitely should allow comments.

    I’ll give TechCrunch some kudos for letting the comments fly, even when Arrington was getting his butt scorched in the process.

    Happy New Year, folks.

33. Steve Morsa
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:26 pm

    What’s a blog? Interesting question; with many valid thoughts and viewpoints . . . my guess is that agreement on this question will occur . . . about the same time everyone agrees on the definition of click fraud.

    Is the Internet great, or what?

34. Michael Arrington
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:27 pm

    next up - we’re going to finally define Web 2.0 via a poll, too.

35. Ben H
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 4:49 pm

    I voted for option #3. Complete freedom should be given to the blog owners to decide upon the type of blog they are gonna run as pointed out in post #3. We can’t warrant others to enable commenting. But I personally feel commenting would help in achieve the purpose of the blog.

    Happy Blogging guys and Happy New Year..!!!

36. Marshall
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Neither BoingBoing nor the Technorati company blog allow comments either. I think that serialized content in reverse chronological order posted on the web is about all you can require for the bare minimum definition. Some blog posts are edited before posting, some don’t allow trackbacks - many have commenting available but that doesn’t mean people leave comments! Enterprise oriented readers, for example, very rarely leave comments.

37. Jeremy Zawodny
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    Ah, this debate again.

    As Michael noted, we do have comments on most blogs at Yahoo. That’s partially my “fault” and the reasoning goes like this (from my point of view):

    * If you’re not going to allow comments, why bother with a blog?

    * If you’re not willing to deal with the comments, you shouldn’t be blogging.

    * That fact that moderation and/or de-spamming takes time and effort doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

    I’ve spoken to many companies, PR folks, and reporters about this stuff over the last few years and always try to get those points across.

    Would you like it if someone sent you an email message in which they also figured out how to disable your “Reply” button? I know it’s a poor analogy, but that’s kind of what we’re talking about.

38. Justin Kistner
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Without comments it’s a news site.

39. John Milan
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    What if the most brilliant comment ever written is added to a 6 month old article?

    If you want to build a community, you need comments. If you want to send a message, you don’t.

    I think the community approach has worked very well for you. Google seems to be doing pretty well itself.

    Oh my goodness, am I defending Google? They seem to be garnering my sympathy now!

40. Dave Winer
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    An essay I wrote on the subject in 2003.

    http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/w.....logAWeblog

41. Milt Martin
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 5:41 pm

    As a developer of community websites for the past 2 years (i.e. placeblogs) we have decided to allow Comments but we do require users to register and login.

    While anonymous comments often lead to lively discussions, they also allow users to say nasty things they otherwise would not say if they had to use a real name.

    To leave comments on our website we require users to register (as a free Member) and use their real name (or published pen name) and real email id.

    Because of our previous experience with PrattNews.com (which is now InPratt.com), we have decided to do this for the following reasons:

    * Anonymity doesn’t build a community, it does harm to it
    * We do not want to be part of anonymous sniping and personal attacks
    * Those who post comments should be willing to defend what they say online and in person
    * We store Comments of users in their own account (as a feature) for future reference

42. thomas
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:03 pm

    This has to be only a question to those new to blogs. Most of the first blogs, the ones that started the creation of millions of others, had no comments. Comments came later.

    There is no debate, no poll will make a difference. Comments are a possible addition, up to the author, but it doesn’t make the difference in it being a blog or not.

    Silly article.

43. Duncan
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:07 pm

    If it doesn’t have comments, it’s still a blog, but it’s only half a blog…indeed what Google has is a eunuch blog.

44. Michael Vu
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    A blog without comments is technically still a blog, by its definition: a web log.

    But let’s be more realistic here, what a blog conceptually represents today is something so much more than a simple “web log.” It’s much more than a collection of time stamped posts. User commenting and rss are definitely two requirements that make a blog really a blog, based on what it represents today.

    Blogs have been the only other Internet technology that have given websites a run for their money.

45. Tom Morris
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    If you had a choice between reading the blog feed or the comment feed, the value proposition for each becomes clear.

46. Timothy Campbell
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:26 pm

    A blog is a blog as long as it is it fulfils the requirements for being considered a journal in addition to being published on-line.

    The ability to post comments on such a journal can be regarded as an optional but common feature of blogs, rather than a requirement.

47. James
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    Regarding #45:

    You’ve got the wrong proposition, unfortunately. The choice isn’t one of do you want mashed potatoes or gravy. The issue is do you the mashed potatoes with or without the gravy.

    I’ll take the gravy.

48. zzap
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    I don’t think a blog needs to have comments enabled for it to be technically a blog. Does this mean that a blog with comments enabled but WITHOUT comments make it not a blog, just because people aren’t leaving comments? Of course not; this is stupid.

49. xxdesmus
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:42 pm

    What a joke.

    A blog is not defined by its comments. A blog does not need to allow comments.

    A blog was originally designed to be an electronic journal. Therefore, comments are just an optional electronic nicety.

50. Zaid Farooqui
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    Once again, we’re headed towards a trend where almost every webpage on the internet will be called a blog.

    Then the dust will settle and we’ll “know” where to draw the line. Right now it’s too early to say where that line may be drawn.

    -Zaid

51. PXLated
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:49 pm

    Maybe the term “blog” has outlasted its usefullness. I think it has. To me, there are still some “personal” journals but most are just websites no matter the feature set or the posting platform (cms) used.

52. Simon
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    The web is evolving…

    In Web1.0 blogs were with out comments now in Web2.0 user interaction is important so comment are in. Who knows what will define a blog in Web3.0 and beyond.

    Why bother trying to statically define a blog, blogs like the Web are evolving. Change happens and technology develops with the needs of its users. Any definition of a blog defined today will not fit with the ideals of tomorrows blogger.

53. matt m
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 6:59 pm

    The web is about links, not comments. If you made a blog without permalinks to posts- that would probably suck. No comments is becoming more acceptable in light of the spam issues.

54. Kevin Marks
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 7:10 pm

    Something I wrote on this a while back:

    http://many.corante.com/archiv.....mments.php

    Matt Mullenweg’s Akismet has done a lot to alleviate this.

55. Thomas Hawk
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    It is not impossible for big blogs to work with comments. Those that say it is too difficult or cite flame wars etc., yes, this will happen. Just like it happens on Slashdot and Digg which are much larger than most blogs.

    Still, people can sift through the noise and find what’s good. Slashdot and digg provide tools and way for users to rank comments which help as well. I suspect that on the more popular blogs you see more slashdot/digg style ranking in the future if moderation doesn’t work.

    Personally I love comments. I think it adds immeasurably to the enjoyment of the experience. Except for Boing Boing and maybe Dave Winer, I read very few “blogs” that don’t allow comments.

    I’m also for keeping comments as unmoderated as possible. I’ve very rarely removed comments on my own blog. Typically only in cases where violence was threatened or someone put an innocent party’s home address, things like that. Personally I’m all for letting all kinds of wackos say whatever they want. It’s more entertaining that way.

56. Webomatica
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 7:18 pm

    I don’t think we have any power to define what a blog is - but I can say my personal preference is definitely towards blogs with comments. If a blog doesn’t have comments it’s pretty much just a personal website or news site with a one way conversation. There’s nothing wrong with that but I feel it’s very “old media.” Part of this whole Web 2.0 thing is openess and encouraging linking, communication, ideas - and part of that is a two way conversation between bloggers and their readers…. in my mind, anyhow.

57. Patrick Grote
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 7:18 pm

    If a blog doesn’t allow comments it’s a content management system. Simple as that. A blog needs to accept comments.

58. Chris J
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    The last line of this entry is “What do you think? Leave a comment, or answer the poll below.” Therefore, this blog obviously focuses on reader feedback. Not all blogs/bloggers have the same goals.

    I find it ironic that you’re asking for feedback to answer this question; I would assume that commenters would say “comments are necessary”, and non-commenters (readers) would say “comments are not necessary”. Of course, you’ll never read a non-commenter’s comment.

    I hardly ever comment on blogs, but I comment here b/c I figure my demographic is under-represented within these comments.

59. drew olanoff
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 7:32 pm

    Without question, if there are no comment or interactive features then it’s not a blog, it’s simply a journal. I dispise that Google doesn’t allow comments, and I’ve applauded Yahoo for being so open. Shoot, even the GM blog has comments. Accept comments Google, don’t be evil.

60. Deepak
    

    December 31st, 2006 at 7:45 pm

    I think comments greatly enhance what a blog really is, at least how I interpret it. That said, Seth Godin’s blog is probably the one I know where I don’t miss commenting. Perhaps cause I use it as a source of wisdom. Maybe the blog definition n