Nick goes on a rant about how unfair the blogging world is. It’s an easy way to get links (hey, he’s getting mine for the first time), but his post is complete nonsense and shows that he has no idea what blogging is all about. His central thesis is that the big blogs have just replaced old media in trying to create an entrenched, defendable position. The big blogs, he says, are supported by the peasants (small blogs), occasionally throwing them a bone (link) as an incentive to keep linking to them.
None of this is accurate. The “biggest” blogs have changed dramatically over the last year since I started writing. Guys that commanded large audiences have fallen, new people have risen. Sure, there are massive politics and games involved, and a lot of mud gets thrown about. But at the end of the day those people with interesting things to say tend to get listened to. Those that don’t…dont.
Many tools have been created to even the playing field. Digg is the most important one. With Digg, a group of 20 people, bloggers or not, are far more powerful than any single blogger. Those 20 people can (and do) get the content of their choice in front of tens of thousands of people. Blog search engines, TechMeme and other services further the democratization of the blogosphere.
So he’s wrong. But he’s also missing the main point of blogging.
It’s not so much about how one blog can rise through the ranks and get popular. What I love about blogging is the fact that an ecosystem exists, where conversations spring up about anything at all, involving all who wish to participate (through blogs, comments and trackbacks), evolve and move on to other things. Geography, time zones, and cultural differences are mostly irrelevant. It’s about the purity of ideas and the two-way web, where we get to say what we think when we disagree. And trust me, I see disagreement on a constant basis in the trackbacks and comments on my blog. But I’m just happy I’m part of the conversation. Is the system perfect? Nope. But its the coolest thing I’ve ever encountered, and my non-sleeping life is now dedicated to being a part of it.
Blogging is not about the individual. It’s about the power of the blogosphere as an entity.
Nick, I see you struggle to find your relevance in this new world. Lashing out at people was good for a few links and page views. Now I see you taking on this Robin Hood “defender of the little guy” approach. It’s good link bait, but it’s still nonsense and people know it. You are a kick ass writer, but is there any substance whatsoever underneath it all?
If you find that you are blogging just to get influence and attention, you should stop because you are going to be dissapointed. No one wants to hear about your woeful stories of bitterness, despair and rejection (except Nick of course). If you are writing because you are absolutely passionate about whatever you are writing about, and you can’t stop yourself from writing, keep doing it. You’ll be happy, even if no one is reading.
Without being prudish, I just think that the language you use in this headline is unnecessary. The web is littered with people using foul language, and there’s no reason for what I thought was a professionally run site to stoop to this level.
Maybe cultural differences mean that this isn’t so offensive in the USA? After all, I come from a country where ‘bumming a fag’ means little more than borrowing a cigarette from someone.
But for others its bordering on the unacceptable. If I wanted to read the National Enquirer I would, but isn’t this supposed to be an ‘Arrington’ production?
You just can’t quit Nick Carr can you?
Normally I wouldn’t comment on a post like this. The rants about what someone else’s opinion is get annoying some times. But I recently put together a list of why you should not blog.
A lot of people seem to share your opinion while just as many share Nick’s opinon.
http://joshmaher.wordpress.com/2006/08/14/top-ten-reasons-you-should-not-blog/
Personally I agree “If you are writing because you are absolutely passionate about whatever you are writing about, and you can’t stop yourself from writing, keep doing it. You’ll be happy, even if no one is reading.”
But for a lot of people that passion (as evidenced here) is about the blogosphere…
So, these sort of things beget one another. The more folks like Nick get your “attention” and realize their ploys worked the more polarized the blogosphere will become.
Um, OK. And you put “asshole” in the title of your post just to grab some eyeballs. Oh, and called him some more names just to stir up controversy?
I think he makes his point.
Davis, Mike probably has a point but “Asshole” may also be there because he doesn’t really like Nick at all. (Refer to the Gilmour Gang caboge for more details).
Regardless, I side with Mike’s comments as motivation to start blogging but side with Nick when the realization finally kicks in (depending how passionate you are this could be days, months, or even years).
Wouldn’t it suck to be blogging for 10 years without ever having a single comment or some form of feedback? If you’re that passionate about writing, perhaps the time is better spent writing a novel.
Mike, you’re only a blogger here at CrunchNotes. CrunchNotes isn’t an A-list blog (or is it?), so you’re not an A-list blogger. So Nick can’t use that against you
. TechCrunch is an online trade journal with short articles. The very fact that you created this site to keep bloggy stuff out of TC is evidence thereof.
Nothing wrong with any of that; in fact I don’t read any A-list blogs regularly, precisely because they lack the focus and brevity of TC. I have a LOT of company in that regard…
Well Nick was able to spin his way through somehow wasn’t he. Maybe he was a bit melancholy about the blogosphere but for today anyway he is an A lister. Now if tomorrow he can come up with something equally as thought provoking then he will be an A lister tomorrow as well otherwise his 15 minutes is over for now.
Some actors and actresses go years and years without getting their “big break”… Most bloggers give up within a couple of months, if that. The majority of us haven’t been doing this much longer than two years.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to call him an “Asshole” in your title, especially that you criticized his aggresivness towards others, and now you’re doing exactly the same.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and can do whatever he wants on his blog, and if he indeed decided to turn into a Robin Hood, that’s good for him,
His authenticity is for his readers and rest of the blogosphere to judge.
And nobody can deny that the blogoshpere is not totally fair.
Call a spade a spade. If it’s his opinion that Carr is an asshole, then what does it matter whether it’s appropriate? Asshole or not, Carr penned a pretty turn-of-phrase, and I think that at the very least, he got people thinking about and talking about the structure of the blogosphere at minimum. That’s pretty good in my book. That said, Arrington is right: Blog for accolades or attention, and you will likely either be forced into attack blogging, or end up rather disappointed.
Actually, some people wonder the same about you.
Mike,
You are entitled not to agree with him…but is it necessary to call him an asshole?
I think Nick made some interesting points…and you make some interesting points…but I don’t think calling the guy an asshole strengthens your argument…for me it weakens it.
I think it then turns your post into the linkbait you berate him for..and cheapens the substance of your argument.
“No one wants to hear about your woeful stories of bitterness, despair and rejection (except Nick of course). “
That’s lame dude – no better than what you are accusing him of. I value your TechCrunch site for its views on the tons of Web 2.0 ventures, but at a higher business level (which is of more direct value to me), I have to say that for me, Nick holds far more authority, than you do. And so I, along with very many others I know, continue to read his blog.
I don’t think you get it, his analysis is right, and you responded with exactly what is wrong with the blogosphere.
And you said you were not going to be around mean people like him!! Then you call him an asshole for making points that potentially damage your business plan.
YOU are the asshole.
“… at the end of the day those people with interesting things to say tend to get listened to. Those that don’t…dont.”
Right. And you know this because you’ve checked out the other several million blogs? C’mon, Mike, the second part of this isn’t even knowable – there are likely tens of thousands of interesting blogs out there that you and I will NEVER know about simply because we won’t ever see a link to them. For the same reason, they’re unlikely to ever get Dugg, on Techmeme or in Reddit. Speaking of which…
Digg and Techmeme as tools of democratization? Only if you fit into the narrow interests of their communities… And even then, what rises to the top in both are the popular things, kind of by design. And I’m not sure I see the logic behind the linked assertions that 20 people can drive you on the front page, so these sites are really democratic.
“What I love about blogging is the fact that an ecosystem exists, where conversations spring up about anything at all, involving all who wish to participate (through blogs, comments and trackbacks), evolve and move on to other things.”
I agree here, but the lack of development on this is massively disappointing… It’s VERY hard to really follow a conversation on a topic. Comments are subordinate to the main post, trackbacks are a cumbersome tool… I swear there has to be a better way to do this.
Two Words:
CAGE MATCH!!
Two men enter, only one man can leave.
Hell, we can webcast the match on TechCrunch! Come on, it’ll be great!
Rick, I’m sure there is a better way. Figure it out and make the world a better place. And everyone will hate you and call you a sellout.
I have to agree with others on the unnecessary harshness of the post title. Nick’s post reflects feelings of millions. 90% of Kids in Korea has a ‘hompy’, usually at Cyworld, and most of them have gone through or is going through the feeling Nick’s post evokes.
Don, you HAVE to realize that Nick knows this and is leveraging those feeling for links, right? He’s not helping these people, he’s using them. You must know that this is his thing – he has no core values, he’ll do anything for attention.
Crunchnotes is an outlet for me where I have no boundaries on what or how I express myself. I write what I feel. No sponsors. No ads. No link counts. I just write. So I apologize, sincerely, for offending a few people.
It is part of your silly network of web 2.0 blather, you can’t say “I am not dealing with mean people” on one blog in your network and then call people assholes on another.
The quality and interestingness of your network is going down each day, and I am enjoying the work of nick carr and techmeme more and more.
“Don, you HAVE to realize that Nick knows this and is leveraging those feeling for links, right? He’s not helping these people, he’s using them. You must know that this is his thing – he has no core values, he’ll do anything for attention.”
——
Again…this type of rhetoric dilutes what you say. When you call out his “lack” of values…you immediately put in to question your own. The great majority of what Nick wrote is accurate. The blogosphere is not entirely egalitarian…is isn’t always fair…and while much of the old media is being displaced…there is a new media within the sphere that is edging in to take its place. I don’t see that much difference between the old school media empires and the new. Techcrunch is building a funded media empire on VC and advertising (not any different than any of the old media giants did it). And when it reaches a critical mass…I’m sure it will sell to a larger media empire.
Call it a blog or network of blogs if you will…but I’m not sure how different it is from a company like Time Warner in attitude when I read Mike Arrington quoted in BusinessWeek:
“I’m hoping everything crashes. Then I want to go buy all the big blogs.”
Gatekeepers and A-Listers…call it what you will…but espousing the honorable and egalitarian aspects of blogging are somewhat disingenuous when you are looking down from above, dispensing link love like manna from Olympus…and sometimes…as in this post…it is the thunderbolt.
I believe in many of the points in your argument…but try to keep it civil…a person like Nick Carr isn’t having a pity party…he’s simply pointing out some of the truth about how the blogosphere works.
Alan – the reason it’s different is that comments like yours can be made and become part of the discussion. You don’t get it, even though you are doing it. Incredible.
And to quote me from an article that I didn’t write shows innocence but not a whole lot of wisdom. Quote me from my blog. That way you understand the context.
And no, Nick Carr is not having a pity party. But he isn’t fighting for the little guy. He’s using the little guy. pathetic.
anon – thanks for commenting Nick.
——-
“Alan – the reason it’s different is that comments like yours can be made and become part of the discussion. You don’t get it, even though you are doing it. Incredible.”
Your behavior is what I’m referring to…not the aspect of discussion. I think I do get it…I’ve been blogging since 2001 and I’ve written a thing or two about it…and published a book on it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590593219/002-6693243-7000055?v=glance&n=283155
And that book was truly egalitarian…about real and regular people who wrote wonderful things that deserved to be in print…and I started that project back in 2003…before Crunch was a twinkle in your eye…while there were only about 6 million blogs (if that)…and no A-Listers or celebrities. I’d say that you don’t get it.
I mean really…it just sounds arrogant to tell me that I don’t know anything…and you…whose been blogging for what…a year…knows everything? Don’t you think that this illustrates Nick Carr’s point about the Lord and the Peasant?
—-
“And to quote me from an article that I didn’t write shows innocence but not a whole lot of wisdom. Quote me from my blog. That way you understand the context.”
I’m not sure what you mean here…because you didn’t write it doesn’t mean you didn’t say it? It has been in the sphere for some time…why don’t you put it into perspective for me?
Here’s the excerpt:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/08/_and_that_wont.html?chan=search
From BusinessWeek
‘What’s up with all this? A blogging empire? Well, Mike doesn’t put it that way, but it kinda sounds like it. His goal is to have 10 to 15 of them in his network. In fact, he says he hopes to create a sort of “distributed CNET,” especially if a lot of other blogs in this increasingly crowded space hit the wall. “I’m hoping everything crashes,” he says. “Then I want to go buy all the big blogs.”
Um…how did I take this out of context? I said you sound like you are building a media empire no different than the old school of media empires…but the difference according to you is that now I get to be part of the conversation. Okay…good. Doesn’t change the validity of what I said?
—-
“And no, Nick Carr is not having a pity party. But he isn’t fighting for the little guy. He’s using the little guy. pathetic.”
And you are fighting for the little guy? You talk like you are the champion of the little blogger…the Z-lister…and I think it rings a little hollow.
I blog for myself. I sometimes share what I write with friends and family. I don’t care at all if anyone reads it and I don’t beg for links. I’ve never had an intrest in being an A-Lister and as a professional writer…I write because I love it and I love bringing something useful to readers.
But I absolutely validate what Nick Carr is writing about because there is a lot of truth in it. When I created my book I did it truly for egalitarian reasons and it was an opportunity for people who many might never get a chance to be published…to have their work in print. That is what I love about blogging…and already I am missing that spirit of the sphere…but I do believe in blogs and I still believe in their power.
**Alan – the reason it’s different is that comments like yours can be made and become part of the discussion. You don’t get it, even though you are doing it. Incredible.**
Hahaha, I actually laughed out loud at this. While it is true that comments like this can be made, I can also write an editorial in the newspaper. A comment on an A-list blog, yours or anyone else, spurs little discussion. I have personally observed that the discussion often happens through trackbacks which seems in my simplistic mind to add weight to Mr. Carr’s post. Blog on, Mr. Arrington, your opinion seems to matter.
Mike, I don’t know enough about Nick to say one way or another. I only weakly associate a post’s content with the post’s writer and I found Nick’s post a good read just as I listen to songs without caring much about the singer. Maybe I am just different.
BTW, my comment was not intended to influence your use of CrunchNotes in any way. I have the same feeling about my blog as you do about CrunchNotes. Don’t let the negative comments get you down.
Crunch On, I say.
Alan – Jesus. No. I’m not fighting for the little blogger. I’m fighting for the little entrepreneur on my other blog, TechCrunch. Dude, eat life or life eats you.
Saleel, again, you are doing what you write is impossible. We’re having a conversation. Just you and me and everyone else that wants to participate. And unlike an editorial in a newspaper, I don’t have to approve of what you say. In fact, I’m wondering based on recent comments if the only readers I have left are trolls.
Deleting posts is so web 1.0
Each day you look more the fool
I will ask again, did Business Week misquote you?
Delete again if you feel the need.
“He’s not helping these people, he’s using them.”
Yeah, it’s my evil plot to take over the world. You saw right through it.
I will also repeat that I am not Nick
Two posts deleted now, he thinks business week misquoted him, but does not want it in print.
Mike, your quote is somewhat ambiguous; studies show Americans eat too much of life and don’t even enjoy their gobbling…
“Alan – Jesus. No. I’m not fighting for the little blogger. I’m fighting for the little entrepreneur on my other blog, TechCrunch. Dude, eat life or life eats you.”
—
Blessed are the Z-Listers, for they shall inherit the sphere.
Alan-Jesus
I’m a troll. Still here.
Mike,
Lets see if what you say is correct…according to your own assumptions about the meritocracy of the blogosphere, a prejudiced, biased blog like crunchnotes should vanish (or should exist with only a handful of readers, not thousands) in the next few months….
That’s right, Michael: Anyone has a chance to succeed. It’s the American Way.
If I could just get you to come over to my blog and look at this compelling material…
http://devos.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/the-blogosphere-is-a-twitter-again-better-call-the-nsa/
Why do bloggers allow anonymous comments if all they are going to do is delete their posts, or accuse anonymous posters of being the subject of their writing?
Mike Arrington and Thomas Hawk both have this accusing anonymous posters of being the subject of their post disease.
Silly
Huh. Remember when blogging just used to be about, you know, writing about stuff you found interesting? Yeah. Let’s say we go back to that and leave all this “my blog demographics are more in tune with the blogosphere at large than your blog demographics because my blogging is so much more MEANINGFUL and IMPORTANT than yours” cheese whiz behind. Either that, or I second the call for a podcasted cage match!!!!
Err Mike – you might be missing Nick’s central point which wasn’t about the big or little guy but about the system underpinning the blogosphere – a system of patronage. He’s rightc on that score. And people being people want, perhaps even crave attention. So they link. This whole a-z list thing is pathetic. It’s not a numbers game, it’s an influence game. Very, very different.
I couldn’t agree with you any more. A terrific response to Carr’s stupid article. Well done.
Hah. I knew you’d all come around to my way of thinking eventually.
Dennis – good to hear from you – No, I fully understood Nick’s central point. His central point is that he is a dickhead.
http://web2.0fightclub.com/
Sheesh Mike… I dropped you a generally supportive (if a bit irreverant) comment, and you deleted it.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen before.
Confused.
Brian, man, who cares if they get deleted? If your point is “irreverant” as you say it should be deleted…do the same on your blog and the quality of readers will start to show up and the peasants will go away, your self esteem will rise, and you will appear less as a co-dependent blogger. This isn’t confusing, it’s win-win baby.
A little from column A, aaaaand a little from column B.
I think the blogosphere is about the individual, in his various sizes, as well as entities, loosely organized or otherwise. Not one or the other. There
are the weak and ignored, the large and powerful, the large and ignored, etc. Good and bad things happen. Some people can be entertained cheaply, fulfill emotional needs connecting with other
humans in myriad ways, gain knowledge and power, etc., while others can be cheated, molested, humiliated, waste valuable time, etc. The
blogosphere is like the universe in both its chaos and in the order and disorder that humans continually create from it. No neat packages
or descriptions can confine it. Sometimes an individual tragedy, personal and inconsequential as it might be, becomes fascinating and influential through dissemination in the blogosphere, whereas a deep intellectual truth may be boring and ignored. The chaos inherent in the blogosphere creates the opportunity for a variety of human interaction that is unprecedented, underestimated, powerful and
dangerous – but as an ever-changing organism impossible to rigidly define.
When dinosaurs ruled the blogosphere? I doubt it.