If you read Waferbaby, you would have probably seen the rather skewed opinions on a review of the site, courtesy of The Weblog Review.
~~
It intrigues me that a weblog should be critiqued. There has been much discussion on what a weblog/blog actually is, what qualifies as a blog and what doesn't and so forth. (Rebecca Blood's essay: weblog: a history and perspective, a brief discussion on spirolattic, amongst others.)
Regardless of various conclusions which can be drawn, a personal weblog is an individual creation and expression, rather like what clothes one choses to wear, which colours one might favour, whether one prefers their coffee with milk or without. So, on what basis can we say what is good, what is bad, and what can be better, apart from truly technical things like incorrect spellings, layout bugs and unreadable font-sizes *?
The very act of reviewing implies that there is a subjective assumption about what your average reader might enjoy or find pleasure in. I don't think a notion such as an 'average weblog reader' truly exists. For one thing, I doubt there is an 'average weblogger'. Readers come as individual as writers do.
(* afterthought: perhaps unless we know specifically the writer's purpose?)
Posted by sniffles at January 15, 2002 12:41 PM