
A simple guideline for blogging - acangiano
http://blog.antoniocangiano.com/a-simple-guideline-for-blogging
======
crux
I think that's well enough, but I also think that wrapped up somewhere in that
blog post is the assumption—which is now terribly widespread but still strange
to me—that the decision to blog comes before the decision on what to blog
about. It seems like nearly all the writing _about_ blogging (like this
article), and nearly all the blogs themselves, are the product of either an
individual or a company saying, 'I/we should definitely have a blog.' Only
then is the next step occupied by a discussion about what to put in it.

Call me simplistic but I feel like there was indeed a time when a much greater
proportion of blogs were the direct result of someone having something to say.
When a blog is the means by which somebody expresses themselves, or
communicates with others, it tends to be good. But I think that a great deal
of blogging culture, by now, tends to consist of bloggers who started websites
to fulfill some business plan, and who need to rustle up things to say.

Even I have a new blog that I started (you can see it at zdsmith.com, but:)
that has absolutely no content in it. Because I haven't had anything to say
yet. Frankly, it's not therefore apparent that I need it at all. Part of this
is because my writing has migrated to more socially direct venues, like HN, or
twitter, or message boards. But nevertheless one has the sense that if one has
a popular blog, that there's much more prestige and exposure and professional
value in it. So you start a blog, and then you have to find a quote to begin a
discussion about what to blog about. If I had a lot to say (and it was most
suited to the rather these-days relatively long form of the blog), wouldn't
guidelines like that be kind of superfluous?

------
gregory80
I agree with the sentiment, it's a noble idea and cause, however, don't you
find it ironic that 90% of your post is about the thoughts and ideas of Mrs.
Roosevelt?

~~~
acangiano
We're not discussing Mrs. Roosevelt per se though, are we? We're discussing
her ideas, which is the point. :)

~~~
gregory80
well yes we are discussing her, since you make multiple mentions of her (1st
graph, block quote, summary), my comment is about her, and your defense is
again, about her.

There have been many figures throughout history who have established similar
ideas (the lower class write about people... the upper class write about
ideas) but you didn't choose to quote from them, you choose to quote from Ms.
Roosevelt.

Essentially, I'm suggesting that you could have pulled any quote about this
idea, but you used mrs. roosevelt. I think you did this b/c you admire her and
it supports your idea, but you used _her_ as your vehicle.

My point is that it's a mix, and even when trying to advocate that we take the
moral high ground and not chit-chat about people, we (wait for it) chit-chat
about people. Hence the original statement... "dont you find it ironic"

Regardless, it was a good read. thanks.

------
maxklein
What about combining the first and the last - wrap an idea in a discussion
about people? Like in the book Sophies World:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie's_World

~~~
mahmud
Max, when I strike it rich I will offer a scholarship in your name: Max Klein
Endowment for Pedestrian Research.

That idea is just perfect. You can use histories of people and events to
deliver great insight. That's why "comparative biography" type articles are
popular in management: "What Napoleon and Lady Gaga have in common", etc. It's
because these articles attempt to teach fairly abstract notions about
organizations, change, movement and relationships to a fairly non-critical
audience that only thinks in the concrete, and lives in the now.

------
awakeasleep
I've always felt like questioning the pithy sayings everyone takes for
granted, but this one seems to hold up, in my experience.

I notice that if I'm tired and distracted and not with it, I trend towards
gossipy talk, and when I'm fully engaged and my brain feels like it's firing
on all cylinders, I'm talking about some sort of idea. In between, it's mostly
talk about things or stuff that needs to be done.

------
yef
Great minds talk about remarkable people, actually. Or more accurately, great
minds talk about people important to them, whether they be a role model,
family member, etc.

------
edw519
_Events that tie into the greater scope of those ideas may also be worth
sharing and commenting on; however discussing people per se is probably best
left to gossip blogs._

Nice thought, but 179 degrees away from natural human tendencies. For the most
part, people want to talk about other people, see pictures of other people,
and be with other people.

Even here at Hacker News...

Last week, there were 2 or 3 gossip threads with hundreds of upvotes and on
the front page for several days (Angelgate, New York vs. Chicago, Facebook).
At the same time, there were quite a few excellent threads about useful ideas
and techniques that I had to bookmark because they were gone so fast.

There's a difference between what _should_ work and what _does_ work and we're
all guilty.

~~~
acangiano
I agree 100% with the human tendencies argument, but I feel that the guideline
still stands. Your blog may end up being less popular because of it, but I'd
argue that its content will be far more valuable to society.

~~~
alextp
Dick Lipton's blog ( <http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/> )does this as well, and
I think this is an essential part of it being as successful as it is. People
like being mentioned and like reading about other people, and humanizing ideas
goes a long way towards making them interesting.

~~~
awakeasleep
We might need some clarification about what we mean by interesting or
valuable.

There is the interest that draws pageviews and adds advertising dollars, and I
believe there is a different interest that informs you and gives you new
things to think about, with less mass appeal but greater utility/value to the
reader.

Talk about people or talk hedged in human interest might be at the first end
of the spectrum because anyone can have an opinion, and reciting that opinion
is the extent to which you interact with the idea.

The other end of the spectrum has a limited, focused appeal because you must
have thought about it or have some understanding of the subject before you can
participate. Then, your opinion/understanding process is challenged to fit
pieces together that might offer contradictions to your beliefs, or require
you to form new ones.

------
readtodevelop
Summarizing the post is nine lines long, at the core is this quote from
Eleanor Roosevelt:

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss
people.

Now my question is: the value of this quote is in the person who wrote it or
in its content?

Great mind are great in a narrow sense. When you examine the lives of people
with great minds you discover that the greatness is not so great. For example
Newton did some experiments by diving a hole in his eyes, Fisher was in jail
and a never ending story of miserable lifes for great people.

------
avar
The implication being that great minds are updating their blog?

