Site Meter

Blogging and the Road Ahead: What Next?

You may also like...

10 Responses

  1. Orin Kerr says:

    Don’t forget (4), stealing copyrighted pictures.

  2. Doug B. says:

    As developed in posts while guest-blogging at PrawfsBlawg, I’d like to improve the blog for to be a more effective academic medium (for those who wish to use the medium this way):

    See

    http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2005/08/how_might_we_im.html

    http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2005/08/more_thoughts_a.html

  3. Mike says:

    Funny you should mention this. I have post (still in draft form) entitled: “Doing Everything Right: Concurring Opinions.” Maybe I should finish it.

    In the meantime, let me mention that the (almost total) lack of political hackery is a big benefit. Though the contributors here are liberal, your group is not (for the most part) whiny liberals. (Bush is like so evil, dude!) And almost all posts lack a political slant. There are enough hacks in the blogging world. Being a hack (Bush is evil, but Janet Reno was such a great person!) will raise your stats (I’m not going to mention what blog is Exhibit A for that proposition), so I hope you don’t become hack for the sake of more readers.

    I haven’t seen Paul Gowder around lately. (Paul has a blog, but for some reason, he is a much better commenter than blogger.) When he’s active in the comments, I check out Con. Op. several times a day. When he’s quiet, I go a whole day or two without reading. He sees to help tighten up the contributors’ arguments.

    I hope you don’t add any additional contributors – unless it’s Orin Kerr. Some blogs have “too many voices,” and that gets annoying.

  4. Nate Oman says:

    Mike: I am not sure to what extent I qualify as a liberal, except perhaps in the technical philosophical sense, given that I used to work for GOP Senator…

  5. Mike says:

    Nate: No offense intended. Anyhow, you tend to blog about law books and buildings, so I think of you as apolitical.

  6. Ann Bartow says:

    I’d disagree with Mike and suggest you think about adding some female contributors.

  7. Law Student '06 says:

    Shouldn’t bloggers be chosen for their intellect and insights, rather than an immutable characteristic, like gender?

  8. Ann Bartow says:

    That would depend on how one views concepts like “community” in the context of “law, the universe and everything.”

  9. Bill Sjostrom says:

    Dan: Would you mind responding to Orin Kerr’s comment, i.e, what are the copyright considerations of pulling pictures off other websites?

  10. Simon says:

    I haven’t seen Paul Gowder around lately. (Paul has a blog, but for some reason, he is a much better commenter than blogger.) When he’s active in the comments, I check out Con. Op. several times a day. When he’s quiet, I go a whole day or two without reading. He sees to help tighten up the contributors’ arguments.

    I agree with this. I can’t think of many things on which Paul and I agree, but he’s always ready with something interesting and thought-provoking.

    I think what I mainly read PrawfsBlawg and Concurring Opinions for is the opinion of the writers; sometimes I’ll find a link to a news story I’ve not seen elsewhere, but mainly the interest is in what our hosts have to say, and what interesting thoughts come up in the comments. I think that blogs which don’t have comments sections, or even blogs with almost entirely inactive comment sections – even ones where the writers have some very interesting things to say – are less interesting, because they lack firstly the interplay of viewpoint diversity, but also because people write a better quality of blog if they can be publically corrected and challenged in the comments section.