What not to blog about?

This is a test.

Hmm. If you're overly concerned about privacy, well, you shouldn't have a blog. I also get more comments when I post a picture of my cats or something personal.

Personally, I like seeing the cat pictures. If you get comments about your cat pictures then there are others out here who are interested in the cat pictures.

I agree that you should be careful when blogging about personal stuff. Don't air your dirty laundry. I liked the Christmas/Hanukah meme.

I don't necessarily think it is a bad thing to post a message saying you are busy. In an age when people expect a constant flow of information, they expect to see you post blogs frequently. So if you are busy or going on vacation, it is sort of a courtesy to say that as to set an expectation for your readers.

I think those ideas for off-limits topics are personal and have nothing to do with the blogosphere as a whole. If cats were to be off limits entirely, many people would stop reading blogs (see Modulator's Friday Ark, the Carnival of the Cats, and Weekend Cat Blogging for just a few examples of why that's true). Likewise, personal posts help readers relate to bloggers. Sure, there's a limit to what should be posted, but blogs are personal journals--so why not post personal entries (excluding ammunition for identify theft, that is)?

I could go on, but ultimately I'll say this: that's the opinion of one person who apparently knows very little about the blogosphere and a whole lot less about people in general. None of those ideas are sound or meaningful; all of them are nothing more than what a single blogger doesn't want to read. If everyone had to do the same thing on their blogs, there'd be no point in blogging and no interest in reading them. What a yawn-fest.

Personal stuff is fine as long as you don't take comments personally. We're not all fans of Serbs; I heard it from some of my co-workers that the MSM press made them out to be quite uncivilized although you are most probably an outlier and to boot, left before the going got good.

The personal experience can be a lot more valuable to readers than a reposting of technical material that appears elsewhere or recycling old posts. Staying strictly technical can quickly devolve into a pedantry contest, but infusing personal experience can add to the flavor of the presentation and make it an interesting place to visit.

"We're not all fans of Serbs"
Is this funny somehow, and I am missing the punchline?

You know, Mondo, I too was wondering about that comment. An unfortunate typo? A failed attempt at satirical parody? Or perhaps some other form of humor with which I'm unfamiliar? That whole first paragraph seems vulgar somehow, but I'm sure I missed the point.

You know, Mondo, I too was wondering about that comment. An unfortunate typo? A failed attempt at satirical parody? Or perhaps some other form of humor with which I'm unfamiliar? That whole first paragraph seems vulgar somehow, but I'm sure I missed the point.

It's not meant to be funny per se, only illustrative. I didn't say *I* wasn't a fan of Serbs, only that they get occasionally bad press and that may be interesting in itself when you go around outing yourself as a member of that tribe.

The topic was, does personal information enhance blogging? And I thought that was a good question since many bloggers go out of their way to NOT put too much information about themselves in their bio line. Not Bora! He goes out there, sticks his Johnson on the anvil and dares people to smack it with the bio that starts, I am a Red-State Serbian Jewish atheist liberal PhD student with Thesis-writing block...

I just found that amusing in the TMI/Bio category, but good lord, I got the peanut-gallery prize for failed satire and (apparently) poor attempts at vulgarity.

And why? Because I noted that from 1992 to 2001 the Serbs got excoriated for being raping barbarian thugs by the US media. Oh wait, this is probably news to you? Yup, the main magazines I read during those years (Newsweek, Time, US News & WR) had anything and anybody Serb as the poster children for inbred barbarism and the face of evil. I blame the liberal press for that one-sided presentation -- these days they can't seem to find anything positive going on in Iraq...

If it wasn't for 9/11 I am pretty sure that they'd still be taking it on the chin since by my count they still had at least two more provinces that could have been carved out to the neighbors. But you know, oddly, when they had to deal with Muslim extremism we were a lot more understanding of the Muslim point of view.

I guess it wasn't a clash of civilizations back then.

Anyhoo, all I was saying was that it takes a special kind of blogger to lead with, "Yeah, I'm a well educated Serb. What about it? Wanna make something of it? Huh? Wanna?"

But frankly I also get a bit confused by the Bio line. In this case is Serb considered a race or a religion? Is Jewish considered a race or religion? If you're a declared atheist, how does the pride percentage break on the Jew/Serb thing?

(BTW -- I know that Serb isn't a religion, but some people do seem to elevate tribal membership to religiosity.)

 
Trolling? Or just functionally indistinguishable from it?

Under the bridge said:

Trolling? Or just functionally indistinguishable from it?

Heh. Well, go back to my first sentence. Personal stuff is fine as long as you don't take comments personally.

The original blog essay said:

I have also been asked to write more about myself and often got links and comments on the most personal posts, so there must be a large audience for that kind of stuff out there. What do you think?

Told you what I thought. I saw that you linked to wikipedia. How about this one:

Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia. Ignorance is not trolling. Genuine dissent is not trolling. Biased editing, even if defended aggressively, is in itself not trolling. By themselves, misguided nominations, votes, and proposed policy are not trolling. They are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias. This requires a judgment of the personal motivation for another's action. Such a judgment can never be made with anything approaching certainty. This fact should always be kept in mind when one is tempted to label someone a troll.

When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user. Remember and apply the principles laid out at Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers.

Of course, a lot of people consider wikipedia dysfunctional but it seems to grow on this principle of inclusiveness that reaches out beyond the commonly incestuous net communities. But I consider the wikipedia internal definition much more germane because it actually helps to build a product.

I'm assuming that talking about cats and posting kitty and pony pictures would be innocuous in the personal information category, but talking about the personal information one places in the public profile is trolling.

Um, OK.