Comments on: Signal-to-Noise ratio of blogging http://www.seanpaune.com/2007/12/22/signal-to-noise-ratio-of-blogging/ Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:09:26 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Shari http://www.seanpaune.com/2007/12/22/signal-to-noise-ratio-of-blogging/comment-page-1/#comment-21616 Shari Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:10:15 +0000 http://www.seanpaune.com/2007/12/22/signal-to-noise-ratio-of-blogging/#comment-21616 I think people who think about blogging as a "signal to noise" issue are, themselves, being competitive and egotistical. This sort of thinking, first and foremost, views blogging as a competitive experience rather than a personal one. It asks the question, "what value does a person's content have to others?" To me, that is not the important question. The question is, "what value does the the experience of blogging have for the author?" Does it build a small community of friendly readers who can comment on each others like-minded blogs and enlighten one another? Does it give the authors a chance to exercise their writing skills and hopefully build on them? Does it help the authors learn about themselves and change positively through comments, interactions and the ever present quest for post fodder? Does it open your mind and challenge you psychologically in ways that other activities do not? Blogs are different from diaries because they carry a sense of accountability due to their public nature. They have the capacity to exert subtle pressure on people to think deeply and thoughtfully because they know their views are going to be out there where anyone might stumble on them and take issue with horribly lop-sided views. A high signal to noise ratio has nothing to do with blogging unless you believe the whole world acts to provide you (the general "you", not you personally, Sean) with personally useful content. If you believe blogs service others rather than their authors, then this is a valid consideration. Personally, I think it's nice if they interest, educate, or entertain others but I don't think they have to. I think they can serve a variety of other purposes, most notably personal growth and community-building. That being said, I would totally agree that a lot of pompous egomaniacs are built via blogs. It's what happens when people are preaching to the choir (this mainly applies to highly opinionated or issue-oriented blogs rather than those about varied topics or about personal information) and smugly believing that all the pats they get on the back affirming the rightness of their position mean they are offering up some form of wisdom. The main problem is that, blogs spewing biased viewpoints don't attract dissenters nor do they stimulate educational debate. They are dismissed by those that disagree and embraced by those who agree. This is a recipe for building one huge ego and inflating the author's sense of self-importance. (By the way, I'm sorry to hear that Roy may be a confirmed "former" blogger.) I think people who think about blogging as a “signal to noise” issue are, themselves, being competitive and egotistical. This sort of thinking, first and foremost, views blogging as a competitive experience rather than a personal one. It asks the question, “what value does a person’s content have to others?”

To me, that is not the important question. The question is, “what value does the the experience of blogging have for the author?” Does it build a small community of friendly readers who can comment on each others like-minded blogs and enlighten one another? Does it give the authors a chance to exercise their writing skills and hopefully build on them? Does it help the authors learn about themselves and change positively through comments, interactions and the ever present quest for post fodder? Does it open your mind and challenge you psychologically in ways that other activities do not?

Blogs are different from diaries because they carry a sense of accountability due to their public nature. They have the capacity to exert subtle pressure on people to think deeply and thoughtfully because they know their views are going to be out there where anyone might stumble on them and take issue with horribly lop-sided views.

A high signal to noise ratio has nothing to do with blogging unless you believe the whole world acts to provide you (the general “you”, not you personally, Sean) with personally useful content. If you believe blogs service others rather than their authors, then this is a valid consideration. Personally, I think it’s nice if they interest, educate, or entertain others but I don’t think they have to. I think they can serve a variety of other purposes, most notably personal growth and community-building.

That being said, I would totally agree that a lot of pompous egomaniacs are built via blogs. It’s what happens when people are preaching to the choir (this mainly applies to highly opinionated or issue-oriented blogs rather than those about varied topics or about personal information) and smugly believing that all the pats they get on the back affirming the rightness of their position mean they are offering up some form of wisdom. The main problem is that, blogs spewing biased viewpoints don’t attract dissenters nor do they stimulate educational debate. They are dismissed by those that disagree and embraced by those who agree. This is a recipe for building one huge ego and inflating the author’s sense of self-importance.

(By the way, I’m sorry to hear that Roy may be a confirmed “former” blogger.)

]]>