What makes a good weblog?

November 23, 2004 4:55 PM

What do your favourite/the most successful bloggers do well that keeps you coming back for more? Links? Writing style? Insight? Range of content? Specialization?

I guess, this question generally comes back to: what makes a good weblog?
posted by dflemingdotorg to computers & internet (14 comments total)

Sadly, you can now ask Google this question. That aside, they write for themselves, about what interests them, in a way that interests me. And they never, ever apologize for not posting.
posted by deliriouscool at 5:15 PM on November 23, 2004

You can also ask metafilter a related question.
posted by swift at 5:18 PM on November 23, 2004

Lots of pictures of hot chicks.

pwb.
posted by pwb503 at 5:21 PM on November 23, 2004

my current favorite blogger, the RudePundit, makes me laugh
posted by matteo at 5:48 PM on November 23, 2004

A consistent tone that rings clear as a bell, so you get a sense that someone is talking to you directly. There should be little clutter obscuring the daily musings of said voice, either visual or technical clutter. It also helps more than you can possibly measure if the site is updated with something new every time you check it out. Of course, if you get the sense you've missed too many updates, you can also lose interest. A consistent pace that people can get used to is key. Daily is good. Multiple times a day gets out of hand. Weekly is okay. Less than weekly is too infrequent.

Kottke is a master of all this and has been for years.
posted by scarabic at 5:49 PM on November 23, 2004

Well, when it comes to Music Blogs...

Regular postings, good taste in tunes, vivid descriptions, and a unique niche that isn't already covered by 20 other bloggers.


That last is actually probably true in any venue. Usually, I tend to find one blog that covers a particcular perspective: Coolfer for a music industry take, or The Tofu Hut for eccentricity and archival material, or Atrios for a political linkpile, and not bother seeking out any redundancies. So the best blogs are the ones that cover some niche or take on issues that just isn't availiable anywhere else.
posted by TTIKTDA at 5:51 PM on November 23, 2004

Good: Clean design, lots of links, frequent and predictable updates, a comment system, interesting and fun writing style, but not too overboard with opinions.

Bad: Boring template design or messy design, personal opinions and "diary" style entries instead of links, unpredictable and infrequent posting schedule, cruel angry obsessive writing style, no comments system. arrogance.
posted by Jimbob at 6:00 PM on November 23, 2004

Meg just posted yesterday what she sees as the keys to doing her blog to her satisfaction. I'd say she is a good model of a personal blog generating quality public interest: some entries are diary-like, some are just links, some are commentary on things read/seen elsewhere.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:08 PM on November 23, 2004

A good weblog is hilarious and personal, and has personality. Cruel angry obsessive is fine, arrogance is fine, opinionated is fine. Taste in links helps, too.

Being disagreeable is perfectly okay. I consider whatsisname over at Joel On Software to be wrong more than right, but I respect a guy who can stand behind his opinions. jwz is an asshole, but at least he's funny and strange. dong is a crabby bastard, but damn is he funny. Skot is hilarious, despite the excessive and repetitive self-deprecation.
posted by majick at 8:15 PM on November 23, 2004

Oh, and it's not very webloggy, and highly journal-like, but Thou Shalt Read Mimi Smartypants.
posted by majick at 8:18 PM on November 23, 2004

They do not, under any circumstance, cut and paste their answer to online quizzlets.
posted by icontemplate at 9:43 PM on November 23, 2004

Just do the opposite of what I do, and you should get an immediate bump in readership.

As for what bloggers do that turns me on, I guess they have to provide something to me. They have to give me jokes, or links, or pictures of things. Can't just be you talking about hanging out with Tara and Joel at a bar. Or you talking about being sick. Unless it's funny, or you are extremely insightful, which you almost never are.
posted by Hildago at 11:03 PM on November 23, 2004

Brevity.
posted by grouse at 2:55 AM on November 24, 2004

Personally, I would much rather read a blog that is infrequently updated but that has a consistent tone and subject matter, because a blogger who is fascinating and compelling when talking about (say) politics might be dull as dishwater when discussing what he did with his kids over the weekend. Or vice-versa. And since I use Bloglines to monitor when my favorite blogs have new updates, I don't have the problem of constantly checking in and not finding any new material.

However, my tastes don't seem to be shared by the mainstream. A site like Real E Fun--which has a small number of posts that are invariably well-written and focused on one particular topic--seems to be far less popular than a site like Mr. Sun whose author posts more often but with a less consistent quality; some of his stuff is brilliant, and some is kind of dull.

For this reason, I'm seriously rethinking my own strategy, which has been to keep two different blogs in order to segragate the two styles I like writing in. I'm beginning to think I'd get a wider readership by combing them into one blog that was less consistant but more frequently updated.
posted by yankeefog at 6:56 AM on November 24, 2004