Comments on: Blogging and the Road Ahead: What Next?

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:53:33 +0000

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.

By: Bill Sjostrom

Bill Sjostrom — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:16:02 +0000

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

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:36:07 +0000

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

By: Law Student '06

Law Student '06 — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:23:53 +0000

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

By: Ann Bartow

Ann Bartow — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:21:44 +0000

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

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:02:42 +0000

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

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:53:55 +0000

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…

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:42:53 +0000

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.

By: Doug B.

Doug B. — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:07:56 +0000

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

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:33:49 +0000