::scr Blogging

[Simon Batistoni]

On 23/11/01 12:48 +0000, alex wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Simon Batistoni wrote:
> > I can see why this is attractive to a non-technical user, but I'm
> > finding myself more and more irritated with people who expect to be
> > able to sit down in front of a computer and use it without being
> > willing to understand *anything* about how it works.
> 
> i don't think it's the computer that they don't understand, but the
> medium/culture they're entering in to.  or is that partly what you meant?

I think it's a bit of both. I was specifically thinking of people
who want to publish something on the web, or build a site, but
aren't prepared to understand the limitations of the medium - that
things won't look the same in all browsers, that things can't be
placed pixel-perfect etc, etc. And people who don't want to
understand what the computer's doing underneath to render their
blogs irk me this way, too. I don't mean that they need an in-depth
knowledge of exactly what's being passed through their processor,
but just that they should be prepared to have some basic grasp of
html, for example.

> > And perhaps this is the most valuable function of the technological
> > priesthood. They're generally a surly, nitpicking lot, and they're not
> > very happy about publishing other people's mental diarrhea.
> 
> i don't think that's fair.  i love reading arp's mental diarrhea.  others
> hate it.  i have the choice of whether i read it or not.  the
> "technological priesthood" should concentrate more on allowing people more
> of that choice.

I think you're absolutely right. I was just being grumpy :)

> > Greg touched on this earlier. Should the web be allowed to contain
> > infinite mounds of useless drivel, and we just use better tools in
> > better ways to cut through it to interesting information?
> 
> yes, and calling it 'useless drivel' might be unfair.  i'm not really sure
> kind of blog you're talking about at this point, though.  do you have
> specifics in mind?

There are two types of page which I think of as drivel - the first
is a personal diary which is publically accessable. I mean, I kept
diaries when I was 13 or 14, but I certainly didn't publish them. I
think the web is the wrong medium for this kind of writing,
certainly when it ends up in broad public indexes like google. And
secondly, pages on a subject by people who know little about it. It
makes finding useful information so much harder, bceause the pages
legitimately index as being "about $foo", but don't add any value.

But one man's drivel is another's gold, or something...

> > So far, google is doing the job for me in spite of drivel, and I balk
> > strongly at the idea of editing people off the web. Will the web be
> > manageable/useful forever? Prace Your Bets Prease...
> 
> depends how you define "the web."  if you define it as interconnected bits
> of information on the Internet, then i say yes.

I agree, although the image of the Crypt in IMB's "Feersum Endjinn"
keeps lurking in the back of my mind...