Microcontent Voting...
Definition of Microcontent Voting: A recent trend in weblog circles, the "microcontent vote" has emerged from several historical contingencies. In particular, the increasing use of tools like Movable Type has encouraged the posting of longer, more involved pieces of writing - writing fit to occupy a fully independent web document in and of itself. Due to a scarcity of time, this excess of wordy posting necessarily leaves the weblogger enervated and recumbant - in turn leaving a considerable number of interesting links uncommented upon - uninvestigated. The most logical band-aid to this increasing problem of weblog exhaustion? 'Remaindered links sections' (unordered lists of links with little or no commentary) and even 'linklogs' have emerged - secondary weblogs attached like small cleaning fish to the huge gills and gnashing teeth of weblog monsters like kottke.org, Anil Dash and interconnected.
The value of these dedicated linklogs or multi-link posts is debatable. It seems that it would be relatively rare for any individual to follow these lists with the same interest and joie de vivre with which they might follow the 'main' site. It would not be beyond the bounds of reason - in fact - to argue that no one actually clicks on the links contained within them at all. But perhaps their utility isn't based around their presence on the site in question... And maybe that utility isn't for the readers of that site at all...
One of the most obvious reasons for their use is that they represent relatively cheap content for weblog authors. Other than the intellectual labour in finding the material in the first place, little effort is required to post it to the weblog in question. Commentary (if any) can be sparse and pithy. The second obvious (and connected) reason for their use is that they represent a quick way of getting interesting links published upon one's site. They are a speedy enterprise. Both of these depend on the crucial final point - that they represent links that the author believes should be seen but has not the time or the inclination to write about further.
As such - the 'linklog' or the 'remaindered links' post represents nothing more clearly than a simple statement on the quality (or the newsworthiness) of the links in question. It is nothing more or less than a vote that "this is worth reading". And these votes are increasingly being collated by sites such as Popdex, Blogdex and Daypop - transforming the mindless daily drudge work of weblog-worker-bees into a neatly ranked link-honey of utility and joy to all...
The novelty of the link upon your site is no longer the issue - the issue is merely is it good? If you answer honestly, then the community itself can decide what's worth reading. Every citizen of weblogland has the right to the microcontent vote. They have the right to use them and the power to do so. And the power carries right through the weblog indices into Google's indexing and from there into the browsing experiences of everyone throughout the world. Use your votes wisely. For Microcontent Votes are Power.
Comments
Please stay on-topic, informative and polite. I reserve the right to remove comments for whatever vague capricious reasons seem reasonable at the time.
I actually don't worry about being highly ranked or the worlds most popular blogger. I could make my site much more popular if I did certain things and talked about certain topics but that would violate the reason I have my blog. It is not a matter of selling out it is a matter of being true to your own voice.
I tend not to link to and write about stuff on Blogdex or Daypop unless It directly affects me and I have something to add. I am actually trying structure my site more like a Zine than a blog. I would like to see more reviews and articles than fluff about me and my life.
I guess I am more inspired to create an off-kilter magazine-like creation than a 100% autobiographic narcissistic masturbatory weblog. Not to say that those are bad and all weblogs are autobiographic narcissistic masturbatory or to say that it is a bad thing.
→ Posted by: 8bitjoystick.com at February 12, 2003 12:10 AM
That's really interesting, but I'm not convinced it's particularly related to what I was writing about - which was the increasing way in which weblog writers are using their sites (consciously or otherwise) to cast votes about which links are interesting, newsworthy or just good quality.
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 12, 2003 12:14 AM
I agree that it's possible to debate that links offered in quick link lists may be of less value to the reader, but I personally don't think that's necessarily the case, for a couple different reasons:
1) Link lists can be updated more easily, and therefore may be updated more often. The value created by freshness may outweigh any value lost in the quality of the link.
2) Even if it doesn't outweigh the value lost, all content on a page doesn't necessarily have to have the same value--the author's design of the page should factor in this imbalance and put the most valuable content in the most prominent place, and the least valuable content somewhere less prominent, like the sidebar.
3) We cannot assume that making things easier necessarily produces content of lower quality (isn't that the same accusation that weblogs have been fighting since day one?)--otherwise the weblog that provided the best writing would be built with weblog tools that were the most difficult to use (and a program that required you to scan in hand-written pages, converting it to text might replace Movable Type for aspiring writers). It's just as easy to link to quality articles and provide valuable commentary through a link list as it is to post an entry of the same quality, maybe easier. It just needs to be more deliberate than before, since the restrictions have to be self-imposed rather than imposed by the tool.
4) I would argue that it's probably not even necessary to make this comparison of quality. If advantages and disadvantages are present, the function of link lists will eventually shift to take advantage of those advantages--one possible shift could be in their replacing the use of browser bookmarks. Several times I've linked something really quickly and come back later to respond to it more fully.
I may have read into this a little too deeply, but it's something I'm thinking about at the moment. I've also started to think of my weblog as a collection of buckets for content that wants to be delivered at different speeds. How far can we push convenience, and will that only make us more aware of the need to put restrictions on ourselves in order to produce quality content?
→ Posted by: Erik Benson at February 12, 2003 1:04 AM
I think you're overplaying the extent to which what I've written is supposed to be a criticism. As my latest post suggests, I'm not anti-linklogs at all. But I think there are interesting questions emerging around them, the main one of which being is anyone actually clicking on them?
→ Posted by: Tom Coates at February 12, 2003 1:19 AM
"no one actually clicks on the links contained within them"
I do call up Anil's links (in the search pane) and check them out most days, if I haven't already seen the targets. The snarky tool-tip titles make it fun.
→ Posted by: Anita Rowland at February 12, 2003 1:22 AM
Yeah, I figured I was, but I got on a roll and couldn't stop. :) Regarding the microcontent voting angle, I know that Cameron (from blogdex) is interested in creating a parser that can distinguish permanent links and temporary links (ie, the difference between a blogroll and a mention in an entry), which would let him then assign different weights on entries depending on link type. This could become interesting, because then it would be necessary to decide whether or not a permanent link was worth more or less than an entry in a post (probably less since it's not as indicative of a conversation that's occuring), and these link lists could provide an extra wrench in the gears. Yes, I think there are definitely some interesting questions emerging.
→ Posted by: Erik Benson at February 12, 2003 1:37 AM
I had approached the theme of "linklogs" a little while ago, from a very similar perspective, basically as one of the results of the "always-on" nature of our tools and (thus) lives.
Fascinatingly enough I had also linked it to recent considerations around "power laws" and the effect they have on "competition" in the blogosphere(s).
Tom is now talking about links=votes, which adds a new interesting twist on the plot...
→ Posted by: fabio sergio at February 12, 2003 9:31 AM
In these days of huge blogrolls and a list of daily reads as long as your arm, any blog is effectively a 'link dump', whether the links are all in one post or split up into several entries posted over the course of the day. If you only visit a particular blog once every day or two, you're confronted with the same plethora of potentially interesting links to explore, whether they're separate main blog entries with extensive commentary, a single link-dump main blog entry, or a string of brief links trailing down a side-bar.
As for whether anyone is clicking on them, it depends. If it's a blogger I trust, I trust them to exercise as much editorial care in their link lists (whether as a link-dump post or as a side blog) as they would in an olde-style blog post of a single link with one-liner commentary. If I've got the time, I'll click on everything in a link-dump post; if not, maybe just the ones that look most interesting.
It's the same problem at MeFi these days - every post has become a link dump, and who has time to check every link in them?
→ Posted by: Rory at February 13, 2003 12:08 PM
As for "is anyone actually clicking on them?" Yes, i am! In the past few days i have clicked on at least 4-5 of kottke's sidebar links, just because the link text made me curious. (and other times at other blogs - but this is the one that immediately comes to my mind)
I don't think sidelogs and linklogs are useless, if there is other stuff in the blog that makes you read it, there is a chance that - when you're done reading the main content - the list of links on the side will tickle your curiosity a bit and you'll at least skim them and maybe find one or two worth to check out. That's what happens with me anyway.
→ Posted by: Kati at February 14, 2003 10:06 AM