The responsibility of a blog reader.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 16 comments link this postThere are many types of blogs, but this one, this Lone Prairie Blog, is of the living, connected variety. Each post is built upon those before it.
It is physically impossible for me to remember each and every building block I've laid out to form the complete Lone Prairie Blog. There are lots of posts (building blocks) that got me to where I am, not just for the readers, but for my own writing and thinking process. I couldn't write what I did last week one year ago; it took other writing to get me here.
It is the same for a reader.
That is, what I wrote before I assume my readers have read to some extent. Or, at least, that new readers have started to get a feel for my writing. I try to throw a link back to a post to explain a concept or theory I'm using in a new post if I've written about it before, but I don't always remember or am able to find the post. That is why I find it so incredibly annoying when a reader pops onto the blog, leaves a comment on a post, and assumes the post at hand is the only thing written on the subject.
Of course I can't expect every random reader brought in by a Google search to read two year's worth of archives. Some posts are definitely cumulative, and some are more like a stand-alone column.
The responsibility of the blog reader isn't, therefore, to read the entire archives section. It is, instead, to think before leaving a comment.
For example:
- Is this the best post to leave this comment on?
- Does this add to or take from the topic or discussion at hand?
- What is my reason for leaving a comment?
- Is this relevant, or would it at least bring enjoyment or be of use to the other readers?
- Do I have some other kind of motive for leaving a comment (personal attack on blogger or other commenter, getting links to my own blog, being a jerk, harassing another person, etc.) other than wanting to add to the discussion or ask questions?
I do not ever comment on a blog without reading a few other bracketing posts, checking out the about section, or checking the category link on the post in question to see what else has been written on the topic. Some people are prone to commenting at the get-go, whereas I tend to read a blog for a week or two before leaving a comment. That way, at least, I get a feel for where the blogger is coming from.
That way, I don't find myself leaving a lengthly religious comment on a cartoon post which, though a fine and true sentiment on its own or perhaps a more serious blog post, is really, really out of whack on that particular post. It's when people leave a serious comment on a funny post or a funny comment on a serious post: it's jarring and painful.
I can't explain, exactly, how I so appreciate comments that seem relevant to the post at hand, but how other comments that have very little connection to the topic or are used as a way to send me a personal message rather than sending me an email annoy the daylights out of me. I hate to use comment moderation for anything other than comments that are disgusting or insulting, and so I often find myself publishing comments that make me irate.
I have been told by various people on various sites, that my rather lengthy blog comment policy was:
- Excessive.
- The comment policy of a snob.
- Bitchy.
- Etc.
My latest addition to that page, then, will be something like this:
- Read some of the blog, some of the about page, some of something, before leaving a comment in which you preach or call to judgment something I've written or posted.
- Forget what I've written and re-post on the same subject more than once.
- Be unable to find a post that I know I've written that would be completely relevant. (For example, I wrote a post about blog commenters just a few months or so ago, and I can't find it. That would be a highly relevant post to link to.)
You can write this post off as typical Julie grumpiness, but for crying out loud: every post isn't your personal opportunity to preach to the others who read here. If you must preach or instruct, find a relevant post on which to do so, not just the easiest post you stumble upon. Or try to match the tone.
NOTE: Usually, whenever I write a post pointing out some things people do on this blog that gets under my skin, the suggestion that I may be ungrateful for my readers is somehow implied in comments or direct email. This is not the case. If you enjoy reading this blog, consider that it costs you nothing while I pay a yearly hosting fee and take the time to write it. The rights (as pointed out repeatedly in my blog comment policy) are all mine. Not yours. I appreciate you, the reader. The vast majority of you are great. I value your presence and thoughts and comments. But to whom it may concern...remember whose blog this is. I would still be writing exactly as I am whether there were three of you or three hundred.
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 9/11/2007 12:55:00 PM
SHARE THIS POST: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Click here to help support this site.
SHARE THIS POST:
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
16 Comments:
The humor from your previous post stands on its own without the building blocks of other posts here.
IT IS A CARTOON, PEOPLE.
And the chance of people who don't bother to get to know you reading this post is a lot slimmer than you winning the lotto. But I also think that this DLE character could be a troll with a lot of time on his hands.
I feel your pain, Julie.
By 
David Cho, at
11/9/07 15:31
Julie,
Sorry my comment caused such a stir.
I've been reading your blog for several months. I've had a link to it from my own blog for at least four. I had one post where I mentioned how much I enjoy your blog. So no, I'm not a troll.
I understand the tone of your blog, too. I've commented on several of your posts, almost always favorably.
I get the cartoon. I understand it's a cartoon. I know it's supposed to be funny. It is humorous at first pass.
I said what I did because I thought the cartoon was all too indicative of how people today treat each other. We've become a society of thin-skinned people put off by those around us. That's a sad thing. We used to be more neighborly. Now we live on little islands of our own making, a "Do Not Disturb" sign tacked to the fake palm tree.
In such an environment, it's easy for us to pass by our neighbor and not think twice. We do it so easily now. Better to not get involved, to stay away. And most of all, stay away from the most difficult people (in what seems to be a definition of difficulty that expands over the years to include more of us).
Perhaps your cartoon captures what we are becoming better than we know. If that's true, I hope we all consider if that's the kind of America we wish to live in.
By DLE, at
11/9/07 20:56
You do understand, DLE, that you are completely preaching to the choir here in all that you say. I don't think anything I've written would say I disagree with you in regards to how we treat people, the need we have for each other, etc.
My point was...it was a cartoon. It was supposed to be funny. Humor has a way of being funny and pointed at the same time, which I think the cartoon was in as much as the comment you left.
The cartoon, should we want to dissect, made several points:
1.One point it made was how we brush people off when they are trying to get our attention.
2.It also made the point about how some people really really really really can be annoying in how they force themselves on other people. All people are needy in some way, but there are some people that assume everyone wants to know about their lives and don't care about anyone else's life.
3. There was a itsy bitsy comment on the prevalence of excessive scrapbooking and the whole subculture it sometimes promotes and how that kind of annoys me, though that point may have been subtle.
On the other hand...
...it was a cartoon and a heavy comment about not having the right to be annoyed by others...well, that might have been better served on a post like this. What I say there supports your statement.
We are human and other humans will annoy us, whether we have that right or not. Sometimes it helps to have a chuckle and realize we aren't the only ones annoyed by a certain kind of behavior. It does not mean we treat people badly. It just means we're human. And very likely, there are people annoyed with us.
Sidenote: DLE, do you have a link to your blog? Your Blogger profile isn't public. I'd like to see other things you've written.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
11/9/07 21:13
I too would like a link to your blog, DLE. I have seen you on JollyBlogger, but I have not seen a link to your blog. Let's see it.
By David Cho, at
11/9/07 21:44
This reminds me of a carefully written email I wrote a while back. It was the product of an agonizing hour of backspaces and retyping. The subject? Email ettiquette.
I was at a point where many of my friends and family were hopping on "the Net" and discovering that they can forward jokes to everyone in their inbox! This without trimming off three or four pages of old email headers, and while putting three dozen email addresses in the "To:" field for all to see. Never mind whether those email addresses might get picked up by spambots or simply get put into someone else's address book. Or whether someone wants their email address kept in confidence, or perhaps it's their work address and they risk getting in trouble if their inbox piles full of useless jokes. Do I sound bitter? :-)
Anyway...when I'd get such an email, I'd respond back with the delicately worded (and smiley-filled) email asking not to be sent jokes or be included in mass emails. Boy, did I get some NASTY replies to that email! People who apparently wanted to appear as if they cared by mailing me a 1998 Ziggy comic were suddenly ripping me to shreds for not wanting to read it. Thankfully such people would remove me from their address list after typing out long rants in reply to my attempt at helping them with their "netiquette" skills.
By 
Clint F, at
11/9/07 23:36
Sorry about the blog profile. When Google subsumed Blogger, I had accounts under different names in both. Since then, I can't change my Blogger profile because it won't accept my Google login nor my Blogger login. I can login to Google, but not Blogger, and I can't change the Blogger settings from Google.
A definite mess.
My blog is Cerulean Sanctum, http://ceruleansanctum.com.
If you want a good taste of the blog, the "Best Of..." links in the sidebar are a good place to start.
By DLE, at
11/9/07 23:43
Ah. The Cerulean Sanctum. I think you're on my blogroll and a fellow A/Ger.
I've been to your blog quite a few times and even left comments. You've written some fantastic posts on topics such as simplifying our lives, etc. In keeping with that, I can see why you wrote what you did; you have a similar "habit" of writing about treating people well and caring for them.
Knowing you are the writer of Cerulean Sanctum, this post comes to mind and I wonder why that is. I wonder if I'd have responded as I did if I'd known who you are, or would I have just inwardly griped and not said anything.
I think I probably would have responded in some similar fashion (yesterday was not a good day for me, a terrible excuse but true) with a lighter hand.
However, I've been on your blog enough times to wonder if you ever get annoyed at people who leave bizarre comments at the end of a long and heartfelt post that you've written. Don't you ever wonder, sometimes, why you even open up some things for comments from random people who might not handle your "baby" with the same care you do?
To me, it's the same kind of thing.
This post is a classic example of it. Drives me nuts, this clash in tone or topic of posts and comments left by others.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
12/9/07 07:41
DLE sounds like the Church Lady from SNL. Beware the humorless.
By , at
12/9/07 11:53
I don't know if "humorless" is exactly a fair description here... DLE has a good blog. Not a lot of cartoons on it, granted, but it's not that kind of blog.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
12/9/07 12:18
Sorry to be off topic, but what's your favorite kind of cookie Julie?
By girlfriday, at
12/9/07 14:40
As ironic as it is (for this post in particular) to be asked my favorite cookie...cookies are never off-topic.
Because my favorite cookie is anything chocolate. (Like those lovely cookies we made while I was visiting you.)
And chocolate is 99.9 percent always on topic.
Unless I write about a death. Then, really, it's just inappropriate.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
12/9/07 15:18
Is it still inappropriate if it is about "Death by Chocolate?"
By Will, at
12/9/07 16:24
What's truly amusing is that I'm famous in my family for making a chocolate cookie called -- on the recipe -- the "Death by Chocolate Cookie."
It is a very delicious cookie.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
12/9/07 16:36
Dan, I am shocked to find that you wrote those words from having read your blog and also your interaction with Teampyro. You sounded like Ingrid or a pyro although from what I have seen, you are so far from that.
By David Cho, at
12/9/07 19:36
All,
I'll say it again. I was trying to agree with one aspect of Julie's cartoon. Somehow that got twisted into me coming down on Julie.
I saw it as a portrayal of the kind of disconnection we suffer from today: We're all thin-skinned or clueless fools who can't stand each other. I took the cartoon as an indictment of that thinking.
If that wasn't Julie's intent, then my apologies.
By DLE, at
12/9/07 22:56
Oh my gosh. No apologies! Nothing more!
It's all good. Everyone interprets differently. It's fine!
DLE -- good points. No worries. Except for the "all thin-skinned."
Clearly, we're not.
Ha ha.
By Julie R. Neidlinger, at
12/9/07 23:00
