I actually prefer the longer posts when a lot of care has gone into them. It's the long, rambling posts, or posts that seem like a bunch of loosely related shorter posts thrown together as one that seem (too) self-indulgent.
Also, why does just about every blogger at some point make suggestions as to how other bloggers should run their blogs?
What eb said. If it's written coherently, and the topic is something I'm interested in, I'll read anything, at any length. 'Holbonic/ian' serves as a warning to save it untill I have twenty minutes or so, but not as a negative judgment.
Oh please. I hate the attitude that "over 500 words is too much." It is as stupid as the attitude that nothing substantive gets discussed on weblogs.
It depends, people. Form does not determine substance. If long articles and books are not automatically statements that "I love me" neither are long blog posts. I hate writing long, carefully researched, clearly written posts and seeing people ignore them. If you're discussing facts, if you're trying to do reporting of a sort, you may need some length.
And no blogger, frankly, is in a position to criticize another for self-indulgence.
One of the nice thing about weblogs over op-ed columns is that you are free to write as long or as short as the subject requires, rather than stuffing it into 700 words no matter what you actually have to say.
It depends on the blog, I think. On Crooked Timber, for instance, I am able to tolerate longer posts -- on Unfogged, however, given the precedents that have been set, I usually stop reading after 35 words.
I could have sworn I did, on CT—"I can't believe I read the whole boner!". But google (which is increasingly not solely to be relied on) doesn't remember.
Well, we should consider the following points, slol:
Ogged claimed he had allowed "ol".
And, indeed, it is not rejected.
However, it produces the same results as "ul".
Therefore, either ogged is a punk motherfucker, or he's trying to make some point about orderedness, in a rather annoying way (and is therefore a punk motherfucker).
I love me. Don't worry too much about whether you love me: who knows where you've been? But then I read the damn things when I write them: I might choke if I came on them cold. Though on second thought, naaah, I always make it through John's and Michael's. It's a question of what's there, you know?
First of all, there are plenty of different ways to blog, and while a case might be made for certain objective qualities, many qualities involved are simply judgable only subjectively.
Secondly, if length is a crucial factor for you, fine, who could argue, but to state it as any sort of objective factor is inane. In my own book, it's the quality of the post that matters to me, not inherent length; I'd certainly rather read a five-thousand-word post that carried off that length than ten fifty word posts of crap (as I subjectively judge it).
Third, well, I've certainly posted dopey or offensive or jerk-headed comments from time to time (mostly due to excessive drink), and so I'm certainly inclined to be forgiving of criticizable posts, but isn't it a tad rude to have this sort of go? Do you really want people to tell you what they don't enjoy about Unfogged, even though it's simply a matter of personal taste, and would be telling you to stop doing things you clearly enjoy doing? Perhaps so, but that wouldn't be my assumption; and if not, y'know, that Golden Rule really isn't just cliche.
In my mind, "Holbovian" has always meant "long, but way worth it." I've seen it misused, as in when some lesser light says "this has reached Holbovian length" when what they actually (should) mean is "this is just too damn long, given what it actually says".
But that's just misapplication, it doesn't mean "Holbovian" itself is not laudatory. Like, for example, when W says he's a "uniter".
Connotation aside, I still prefer "Holbonic". I think Holbo does too.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:25 AM
How did Berube get off the hook when it came to adjectivizing names?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:27 AM
Ooh. Bérubéan.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:34 AM
Bérubic. And his commenters, the Bérubim.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:40 AM
I actually prefer the longer posts when a lot of care has gone into them. It's the long, rambling posts, or posts that seem like a bunch of loosely related shorter posts thrown together as one that seem (too) self-indulgent.
Also, why does just about every blogger at some point make suggestions as to how other bloggers should run their blogs?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:43 AM
You should post more.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:44 AM
That last comment was meant to apply to all authors of long posts and not to any in particular.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:45 AM
7 to 5, but it could apply to 6.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:46 AM
What eb said. If it's written coherently, and the topic is something I'm interested in, I'll read anything, at any length. 'Holbonic/ian' serves as a warning to save it untill I have twenty minutes or so, but not as a negative judgment.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:50 AM
I agree with ogged. Shorter is better.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 10:55 AM
Oh please. I hate the attitude that "over 500 words is too much." It is as stupid as the attitude that nothing substantive gets discussed on weblogs.
It depends, people. Form does not determine substance. If long articles and books are not automatically statements that "I love me" neither are long blog posts. I hate writing long, carefully researched, clearly written posts and seeing people ignore them. If you're discussing facts, if you're trying to do reporting of a sort, you may need some length.
And no blogger, frankly, is in a position to criticize another for self-indulgence.
One of the nice thing about weblogs over op-ed columns is that you are free to write as long or as short as the subject requires, rather than stuffing it into 700 words no matter what you actually have to say.
Posted by Katherine | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:15 AM
There are, in fact, only so many notes that the ear can hear over the course of an evening.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:23 AM
All Ogged meant to say is that "Holbovian" is derogatory whereas the slightly more common "Holbonic" is the laudatory one.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:27 AM
Long posts are fine, if well-written. The length isn't the problem; it's the inability of some to write well given a slightly longer length.
I do prefer, however, if a post is going to be very long, that is it partially hidden (with a link), especially if it's a group blog.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:27 AM
It depends on the blog, I think. On Crooked Timber, for instance, I am able to tolerate longer posts -- on Unfogged, however, given the precedents that have been set, I usually stop reading after 35 words.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:36 AM
35 what?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:39 AM
But what about oblique, faux-clever post titles? What do they say about the posters? And what's the proper adjective?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:40 AM
I tend to be concise, would like to write longer posts than I do.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:41 AM
Has anyone made a joke with "holboner" yet?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:45 AM
No, but someone will before too long.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:49 AM
Is that a long post below the fold or are you just happy to have readers?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:49 AM
I'm banning myself for that one.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 11:50 AM
Has anyone made a joke with "holboner" yet?
I could have sworn I did, on CT—"I can't believe I read the whole boner!". But google (which is increasingly not solely to be relied on) doesn't remember.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 12:13 PM
Oh, also I disagree with ogged.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 12:13 PM
Case in point: Tim Burke.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 12:14 PM
Here we learn an important distinction:
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 12:20 PM
"Holbovian" is derogatory whereas the slightly more common "Holbonic" is the laudatory one.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 12:43 PM
Well, we should consider the following points, slol:
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 12:47 PM
That chain of reasoning seems to me admirably taut.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 12:55 PM
27: If you omit similars, it's only 14 v. 12. Anyway, sheesh.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 1:01 PM
I love me. Don't worry too much about whether you love me: who knows where you've been? But then I read the damn things when I write them: I might choke if I came on them cold. Though on second thought, naaah, I always make it through John's and Michael's. It's a question of what's there, you know?
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 2:06 PM
I'm just teasing Tim, I actually make it all the way through a lot of your posts. ;)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-18-05 2:07 PM
Yeah, completely disagree.
First of all, there are plenty of different ways to blog, and while a case might be made for certain objective qualities, many qualities involved are simply judgable only subjectively.
Secondly, if length is a crucial factor for you, fine, who could argue, but to state it as any sort of objective factor is inane. In my own book, it's the quality of the post that matters to me, not inherent length; I'd certainly rather read a five-thousand-word post that carried off that length than ten fifty word posts of crap (as I subjectively judge it).
Third, well, I've certainly posted dopey or offensive or jerk-headed comments from time to time (mostly due to excessive drink), and so I'm certainly inclined to be forgiving of criticizable posts, but isn't it a tad rude to have this sort of go? Do you really want people to tell you what they don't enjoy about Unfogged, even though it's simply a matter of personal taste, and would be telling you to stop doing things you clearly enjoy doing? Perhaps so, but that wouldn't be my assumption; and if not, y'know, that Golden Rule really isn't just cliche.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 12:30 AM
What about people who post too often? Is five posts a day too many? I can't keep up with people if they do more than 3.
If there isn't a lot of thought going into posts, it can simply be a lot of clutter.
Posted by Amardeep | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 10:58 AM
In my mind, "Holbovian" has always meant "long, but way worth it." I've seen it misused, as in when some lesser light says "this has reached Holbovian length" when what they actually (should) mean is "this is just too damn long, given what it actually says".
But that's just misapplication, it doesn't mean "Holbovian" itself is not laudatory. Like, for example, when W says he's a "uniter".
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 7:34 PM
Actually, if Holbo himself would cut out all the digressions, parentheticals, and metacommentary, most of his posts would be about a third as long.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 7:39 PM
I just think ogged is letting slip his creepy co-blogger crush on a certain co-blogger.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 7:44 PM
Actually, if Holbo himself would cut out all the digressions, parentheticals, and metacommentary, most of his posts would be about a third as long.
And a third as interesting.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 7:45 PM
I'm not saying it would be a good thing.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 7:52 PM
I just think ogged is letting slip his creepy co-blogger crush on a certain co-blogger.
This is funny; I was going to accuse you of the same thing after 35.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-19-05 9:36 PM
This is funny; I was going to accuse you of the same thing after 35.
But I, sir, have no co-bloggers.
And besides, Holbo just isn't my type (what with his Y chromosome and all).
Or were you accusing me of exhibiting a crush on his wife by praising him? If so, I think you may have a problem with your game.
Say, how come no-one has made a cock joke out of "Holbovian length"?
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:27 AM
Not to be the pseudonymity police, but isn't 41 skirting the edges of being googleable?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 7:02 AM
Not to be the pseudonymity police, but isn't 41 skirting the edges of being googleable?
You're right, it is sort of googleable, sort of. I sincerely apologize, and ogged please change and/or delete it.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 10:32 PM