Jump to content

Talk:Blog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HornyDesertLizard (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 29 October 2007 (edit summary removed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL

Tech Blogs

The Tech_blog entry is orphaned, may be worth adding to the "See Also" section.

Microsoft Controversy -- appropriate here?

While I'm as bothered as anyone by the Microsoft blogging controversy, I was surprised to find it in this article. Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article about blogs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.103.203.4 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed. No need to list every single controversy or argument that involves bloggers in the main Blog article. Why is this one in particular mentioned while excluding all the others? Kevinharder 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also pointless becasue there isn't really an issue. It states that laptops were given to bloggers, and if they were journalists, it would have been illegal. It's just an irrelevant fact, and way too undetailed in the first place. Slayer425 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be in reverse?

If someone creates a blog or journal that is not diaplayed in reverse-chronological order, why is that not considered a blog? Is there any source that says this must be true?

Furthermore - how is it possible to display entries in reverse-chronological order? That would mean one has to write the last entry first, and the first entry last. From what I have seen, blog entries made in 2007, appear in 2007. Entries made in 2008 don't appear until 2008. As the 2007 entry existed before the 2008 entry, the 2007 entry is displayed first. How do you display an entry that doesn't even exist yet?

Another conundrum - some blogs allow you to customize the display order. If I go to a blog that displays its index in descending chronological order, and change the preference to display in ascending chronological order - does it suddenly cease to be a blog?

I would say it does not. What is important about a blog is that it is "serial" and thus is a series of postings in a chronological order. Placing the newest at the top is simply a reading preference; many people read blogs in RSS readers in forward chronological order. What differentiated blogs from more ordinary browsed web sites was their serial nature, I would recommend this simpler definition.--Bradtem 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Change to Page

This was discussed up at the top of the page on the subject of the 'Types of Links' section, but I'm fairly certain that the article can't be complete without a mention of the importance of the group blog in the development of the blogosphere - so much so that I created a page for Collaborative Blog.

As mentioned in the article, 7 of the top 10 blogs on NZ Bear's Ecosystem are group blogs. Additionally, it would be churlish not to mention such mega-group blogs such as DailyKos somewhere in the article.

So, even if it's only in the 'See Also' section I'd appreciate it if someone with editing permission could include it.

p.s. Please feel free to visit the collaborative blog page and add any information you feel is relevant. I've been out of the game for a couple of years now, so my recent knowledge will undoubtedly be a little rusty.

Sortap 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Sortap[reply]

Blogswarm

The topic 'blogswarm' redirects to this page, yet there is no information about that phenomenon in this article. I believe the topic needs its own article, including some of the more famous blogswarms over the years. Without objection, I'll create that page, removing the redirect. Arjunasbow 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also addition

I think that Bebo should be added too the See Also section as this is a quickly developing social network site.

Local teenagers in my area (New Zealand) seem to currently prefer Bebo to the other social networking pages like MySpace.

Nightkhaos 11:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Quarters

I think there should be a mention about Captain's Quarters. The influence it had, at least for a moment, and the legal issues that arose at the time of its involvement in the Adscam are of special interest. Or so at least when compared to other examples given in the article... --Childhood's End 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed See Also Section

I removed a ton of links they I believed were not core to blogging. For example I removed all the social networking links, but left a link to a list of social networking sites. Let us know if you disagree with a removal. Daniel.Cardenas 16:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

I added a note about some early history of blogs (from personal experience, but with cites of course) which may nonetheless open some questions, so I thought I would add some background reasoning here.

When Tim Berners-Lee defined the web, he designed it to include many of the media that had come before, and to this day URLs include means to access ftp servers, gopher servers, telnet sessions, sending E-mail and both USENET newsgroups and individual USENET articles. I know from both his writings and personal conversations that he considered these things to be part of the web, though they were not done in hypertext with HTML and HTTP. Thus the web log as a concept (if not the name) will predate what many people other than Berners-Lee think of as the period of the web. USENET and E-mail mailing lists were the primary forms of serial publishing on the pre-HTTP web (another key characteristic of a blog is that it's serial.) E-mail writing was part of the web, reading E-mail never became part of it until web-based E-mail readers appeared. As such, I believe the earliest blogs are found among moderated newsgroups. Most moderated newsgroups did not have the third component a blog needs (a personal editorial voice) but some did, and the earliest of these was mod.ber, so I have added a small section on it. You can still read mod.ber's archives with the link I provide. At some point there should be an article about it and Brian Redmond. I know him but only distantly, so I have not yet prepared one.--Bradtem 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be wandering into the realm of original research. A key difference is that newsgroups until relatively recently (I'm thinking of deja.net which became Google Groups) did not have "persistence" in the way that blogs have archives. Plus they have a highly specialized client (the newsreader), while Web clients were always intended to be jacks-of-all-trades to begin with. --Coolcaesar 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While my expertise in the area does indeed come from having participated, the fundamental details are of course cited from other sources to avoid the problem of being original research. There are a number of blogs that don't persist, so I have not considered that part of the definition of a blog, and in any event, USENET was archived, and that's why you can read the archives of mod.ber today - I linked to them. Deja News did not build the archives, those were done by others are used much later by Deja (and Google which bought it) --Bradtem 23:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archives of Usenet groups weren't easily available until the web, I believe. Given that "Blog" is short for "web log" I'd say that pretty much indicates we should be sticking to WEB-based things here. I mean, we could include a LOT of things if we start looking for examples. Books, newspapers, diaries, fanzines, etc etc etc... Also, I don't think your citations are significant enough to stop this being original research. You don't cite anyone who's said that mod.ber was a blog, you simply link to the archives of the website. That's original research, isn't it? --Lijil 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point, as indicated in the citations, is that the "web" was defined, by the coiner of the term, and in the protocol specifications, to include USENET, so I hope we are sticking to web-based things here. Books, newspapers etc. are not part of the web, though finger, gopher, wais and USENET are.--Bradtem 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? And you didn't answer my point about your sources being insufficient for your point in the first case. Unless you can cite a source that claims that those usenet discussions were precursors to blogs, we should delete that section because it is original research. --Lijil 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One source is cited in the text, which describes the inclusion of usenet/nntp support as stage 1 of the WWW project. You will find similar references in just about any document regarding the web, such as [this one] or [this one] or many others. I guess it depends on what you view as "research." If you recognize TimBL's inclusion of USENET in the web, do you assert that these things that were identical in purpose to today's weblogs were not weblogs or their precursors? Which are you asserting is not accepted, TimBL's definition, or the similarity of mod.ber and today's well known blogs? --Bradtem 08:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both. I read the source you gave for the idea that usenet is part of the web, and don't see that assertion made in it. And if the only external source for the assertion that mod.ber and other usenet groups are "the first blogs" is an interview with YOURSELF, well, that's hardly objective,encyclopedic content, eh? Lijil
I don't, and wouldn't cite an interview with myself. Where do you think I am citing such? What I cite above (and can move into the article) is Tim Berners-Lee's design specifications and definition of the web, which describe it as encompassing a wide range of protocols, with specific reference to several including ftp, nntp/usenet/netnews and the like. However since you don't seem to see it (read the 2nd cite above if you haven't) I have put in a request for a confirmation that I am sure will be authoritative enough for you.--Bradtem 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Legal Issues" Section

This section seems to be getting a little long and unfocused. Some reorganization seems to be in order. Perhaps break into a couple/few sections? Some of the entries refer more to inadvertent (negative?) consequences to blogging, rather than legal issues per se. The Ellen Simonetti entry has focussed on employee v. employer rights and responsibilities in blogging; perhaps that issue could be a separate section. Another could be something like "blogging and defamation legalities", etc. Perhaps a section, or even a new wikipedia entry, listing famous examples of blogging and consequences. Bdushaw 00:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone have any examples of men who were fired for blogging about their employer and/or personal lives? Bdushaw 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes James Howard was fired by the Dadeland mall in Miami because of his blog. also.... According to a man living in Miami FL he invented the blog in 1982. His name is James Howard, you can view his website at www.showmeblog.com Go and see what he has to say for yourself. He is addiment that he is the worlds first "blog".

India

Remember the time when blogs were banned in India, Pakistan ? Does that need to be mentioned 122.162.58.39 09:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs can be many things2

Somebody seems to have changed a line near the beginning of the page where it explains what blogs are. They removed the text that said that a blog can also be an online diary/journal, presumably because the person makes a distinction between online journals and blogs. However, the blogging community would seem to disagree since so many blogs *are* personal diaries. I'm not a registered user at the moment, but perhaps somebody could revert that statement? To say that blogs cannot be personal diaries is disingenuous at best. 24.96.212.167 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I write this the opening line of the article says "A blog is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order." which covers personal diaries and journals. Did you have a more specific change in mind? Gwernol 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This line, "Blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news." was originally "Blogs often provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries." It was changed this morning. That's the change I was looking to be reverted. 24.96.212.167 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, looks like it was reverted by Rador. So hopefully it stays that way. :) 24.96.212.167 14:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been here recently, but a definition I was happy with a long time ago is gone and now it says this: "A blog (short for web log) is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order."

I would suggest modifying it to look lilke this:

"A blog (short for web log) is a website where entries are displayed in reverse chronological order."

user-generated website - The website might not always be user generated, but the content might be.

journal style - Doesn't have to be... Stevegarfield 17:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogging attracts abuse.

Today in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-internet31mar31,0,4064392.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The unfortunate fear factor - a successful blogger may attract kooks, or at least those that would use fear to stifle the bloggers dialog. This would seem to be a product of the anonymity element of the blogging process. 24.41.39.124 07:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livejournal is blogging software?

Hi

The following paragraph has confused me slightly:

"Blogs can be hosted by dedicated blog hosting services, or they can be run using blog software, such as WordPress, Movable Type, blogger or LiveJournal, or on regular web hosting services, such as DreamHost."

I was not aware LiveJournal was blogging software (my understanding being that blogging software = "personal publishing programme" that you can put on your own domain) I thought LJ was a dedicated blog hosting service?

Also, is it necessary to mention DreamHost?

To me, it would be clearer as:

"Blogs can be hosted by dedicated blog hosting services, such as LiveJournal, Deadjournal, Typepad, Vox or Wordpress.com. Alternatively they can be run on regular web hosting services using blog software - otherwise known as personal publishing platforms/programs - such as WordPress, Movable Type, blogger, Expression Engine or Greymatter."

--Vertilly 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me find my perfect blog.

I want to create a blog. My main issue, for what constitutes a perfect blog, is that it create interlinks, @ least as easy, as wikipedias double brackets. Are there blog hosts which interlink this easilly? I know of wikilogs, but as for thers editing my page...that is...eh...not so much.Thaddeus Slamp 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how can i create a blog

Under "Type", then "Genre" your link to "Slog" goes to a page about cricket (the sport) slogs. Shouldn't it go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slog_%28blog%29, which is a page about site blogs? When you take the link provided in this article it goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slog, which page itself provides another link to "Slog (disambiguation)", from which you can get to the real page you want, but it seems silly to have to go that round-about way to get to the information you want. AlanEarl 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Wikipedia article Blog Promotion to Blog

Add Wikipedia article Blog Promotion to Blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guadalupa543 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Peter Merholz, inventor of the verb to blog

FYI: Just found something about his professional background: [1] 84.173.230.72 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a blog

How do I do it? I have been blogging on Wikipedia's Sandbox long enough. 66.218.12.64 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try WordPress hosted or Blogspot. Computerjoe's talk 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: # 1.4 2004–present

..Some blogs were an important news source during the December 2004 Tsunami such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, which used SMS text messaging to report from affected areas in Sri Lanka and Southern India.

To the best of my knowledge, MSF wasn't blogging in the Tsunami's aftermath. The blog that defined disaster relief blogging was the South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami blog (See Intelliseek's Blogpulse for one study, Google's tsunami relief page and also the TsunamiHelp media coverage page). And the blog that reported and used text messaging was the now-defunct http://desimediabitch.blogspot.com, which at that time was called C*S*F, short for Chien(ne)s Sans Frontieres, which was a tongue-in-cheek homage to MSF. I'm posting this as a suggestion rather than editing the page myself since I was involved with both TsunamiHelp and C*S*F, and my views, as a result, can hardly be seen as neutral.Zigzackly 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

electrical and instrumentation engineering

Calling Kathy Sierra's blog "innocuous", while accurate, is an opinion-based statement and inappropriate coverage.

Types

In the types section it says "one comprising links is called a linklog,[11]" however the cited document says that one that contains links is called a weblog, can this please be corrected 88.107.32.193 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Watch

Have you watched your eyes?!

Kindly report what you see of your own eyes, the lids, the lashes, the corners. Let us build a data-base in this blog of what we all see. There is a lot to see, By the way

From among our reported experiences we will slowly evolve a home -brew eye yoga of sorts, Of beauty, of de-stress etc. For, is it not said that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!

We should have enough data to interest experts to investigate & comment and make it all real to us objectively.

I need your feedback for me to have faith in watching my own eyes. Though I have found it good, I rarely remember to watch it but leap into the world forgetting all about it.

Thank You,

Don’t watch too much, though

Blog vs. Online Magazine

Given the broad definition of blog, I think there needs to be some discussion of how to distinguish a blog from an online magazine. It never actually says that blogs are all written (or mostly written) by one person; is that intended to be part of the definition? If so then it starts to become clearer; an electronic magazine would be written by multiple people with one or a small group of "editors".

Trouble is, Boing Boing for example is widely referred to as a blog, and yet is clearly more accurately described as an online magazine. Making Light perhaps a little less like a magazine, but three people currently have and use article-posting rights there. Both are clearly blogs in general usage.

This distinction is particularly important since "blogs" are explicitly not considered reliable (I believe, though I can't read the minds of the people making these decisions, because they're completely controlled by one person, and hence have no checks and balances on their accuracy). Since this article is cited in that article, it appears that the definition of blog here is becoming part of the Wiki standard for what's considered verifiable.

Dd-b 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the definition of blog would have any explicit declaration of non-reliabilty. My personal view is the best way to characterize a blog is to say it has a "personal editorial voice" but that need not be just one person's voice. However, whatever definition we use should be a result of citation of definition efforts by external experts.--Bradtem 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new language entry

If you can add the following language entry to the article tt:Blog

Thank you!

Xanga dates appear incorrect

The dates for Xanga in this entry are completely different to the dates given in the separate entry dedicated to Xanga. Could someone please check which dates are correct? --Lijil 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

predecessors

An user claim "Chronicles, commonplaces, diaries, perzines and amateur press associations can all be seen as predecessors of blogs" is not relevant to Blog. But I don't think so. It explain why and how people are interested in Blogging at first place well. I believe it is historical origin.--Alf 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. Any assertion on Wikipedia, especially such a sweeping and broad claim, must be neutral and should be supported by citation to reliable, and verifiable sources. Please read all three Wikipedia official policies: WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. I am countermanding your edit and reinstating Kjoonlee's deletion of that text. If you think that sentence should stay, find a reliable and verifiable source that actually makes that assertion. --Coolcaesar 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FREE BLOGGING

Thanks are in order for giving information to old people who are illiterate in computers. THANKS, THANKS, THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.195.66 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employment --Back up anecdotes with summary data

In the section elaborating possible effects blogging may have on a blogger's employment, it would enhance the section's effectiveness to not only present anecdotal evidence of the effects but to also provide related survey data, particularly where the surveyor has credibility. I.E. flow from ancedotes to a summary discussion of impact.
For example, this page provides stats that underscore that employers (and their agents) are now researching candidate mentions on the web. A personal blog is likely to be found and included in the cadidate's "file". Nearly one half of the recruiters responding to the referenced survey indicated they had eliminated a candidate due to their own negative reaction to information found on the web. Perhaps more surveys can be found and included

ACEdit 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Televisation

please could someone tidy up & move this section.

I spend my time adding content but am too lazy to format it correctly.

Sorry, but at least i am honest and content is what it is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tidyup & put in

my section on the TV serialisation of a blog has been removed. I think this is relevant. Could people comment on its suitability & include in an appropriate format. It is below:

- == Television Serialisation Of A Blog == - - In the United Kingdom the Belle De Jour blog about a london prostite has been serialised. It is due to be shown near the end of the month on the ITV network. - - The official site for this is at http://www.itv.com/secretdiary/ and the belle de jour blog can be found at http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.com/ BBC news story on this is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6354397.stm -

Cliff Chulcoop 16:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's suitable; if it were put in, I'd delete it as an ad. --Orange Mike 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is mentioned in tbe Billie Piper entry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_piper

it mentions the Belle de Jour book. In fact her book was based on her blog so essentially it is the first (to my knowledge) serial tv adaptation in the UK based on a blog.

I am not aware of any blogs in the UK or elsewhere ever having been televised before.

Chulcoop 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Belle de Jour (writer) article too. A first? Given the omnivorous appetite of the entertainment industry for "content", I wouldn't bet on that. Can you source your theory? Otherwise, it's Original Research. --Orange Mike 00:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webcameron

re: Belle de joure will do more research.

However i have extra. Yes this is Original Research however everyone in Britain KNOWS this to be true as FACT. I just have to source it.

David Cameron is the first leader of a major politican party in the UK to become a blogger. He set up his blog www.webcameron.org on it he shows video clips and responds directly to voters questions.

The bottom line is this. I am lazy. I want to add info which I know others can improve upon and back up, so hopefully i can put it into talk sections like this which others can run with.

Also as i understand it Wikipedia does not need ONLINE references just references even if they are in a book that is hard to find.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5394766.stm

I can also tell you re: Belle de Jour I am not aware of any IN THE UK blogs that have been televised before this.

Chulcoop 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poetblog Matters proposes a mix between personal text writing, meta data annotation and a search engine using the meta data. The site serves as an experiment. Its purpose is to use the meta data to speed up looking for information of personal interest. I think it deserves mentioning as idea. Also it needs a user base large enough to make the project interesting.

Poetblog Matters

Please add it to external links.

84.197.88.223 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. --Orange Mike 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd

Do you think that maybe we need to differentiate on word usage?

from: http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/10/06/wikipedia-blogs/

Wikipedia’s entry on blogs, with everything that is not the word ‘blog’ (or a derivative thereof) removed:

Blog Blog blog Blog Blog blog Blog blog blogs blog blogs blogs blogs photoblog sketchblog blog blog blogging blogging blogs blog blogs blogging Blogging blogging blogging blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blogging bloggers blog blogging bloggers blog blog weblog blog weblogs blogs blogging Blogs blog blog blog weblog blog weblog blog blog blog weblog weblog blogging Blog blog blog blog blog blog Blogging blog weblog bloggers blogs blogging blogs blogging blogging blogging blogging blogs blogs bloggers blogs Blogging blogs bloggers blogs blogs bloggers Blogging blogs blog blogs blog bloggers blog Blogs warblogs Blogging bloggers Bloggers blogging blogging blog liveblogging blogs blog blogging blogging blogs blogging blog blogging bloggers blogs blogs blog bloggers Blogs Bloggers bloggers blogs bloggers bloggers blog blogs blogs blogs weblog bloggers Blog moblog moblog blogs blog sketchblog photoblog Blogs blog blog Blogs blog moblog blogs blogs blogs blogs blogs blogs blogs blog blogging blog Blogs blogs Blog blog blog blog blog blog Blogging blogs bloggers bloggers Blog MyBlog blogs Blog blogs blog blogs blog blog blog blog blogs blog blog blogs blog Blogs blog blog blogging bloggers bloggers blog blog blogs bloggers blogging bloggers Bloggers blogs blog weblog Blogs blogs blogging bloggers blogs Blog blog blogs blog Blogging blogging bloggers blogging blogging bloggers bloggers weblog weblog weblog bloggers bloggers bloggers blog blog blog bloggers blogs blog blog blog blog blog blog blogging blog blog blog blog blog blog blog bloggers blogging blog bloggers blog Blogging weblogs blog blog blog blog blog blog weblog blogging blog blog blog blog blog blog Blog Blog Blogs blog blog blog blog Edublog blogging Blog blog blogging blogs blog blog Sideblog Blogs Blogs Blog Blog blogs blog blog Weblogs blog blogs photoblog Photoblogs Blogging weblog blog NewsBlog blog blogging blogs blogs bloggers bloggers Blog Blog Blog blogging Blog blog Blog Blog blog Blogs blog blog bloggers Blog Blog blog blogging blogs bloggers Blog Blog Blogs Blogging Blog Blog Blog Blog Photoblog Sketchblog blog blog blogging Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blogging Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog blog Blog Blog blog blog Warblog Blog blog Blog Blog Moblog Sketchblog Photoblog Blog Moblog Blog blog blog blog blog blog blog blog Blog Blog Blog MyBlog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog blogs Blog Blog Blog Blog blogs Blog Blog blogs Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blogs blog blog blog Edublog blogging Blog blogging blog blog Sideblog Blog Blog Blog Blog blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog weblog Blog blog Blog Blog Blog Blog photoblogs Photoblog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog blogs Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog blogs Blog Blog Blog blog Blog Blog blog Blog blog Blog Blog Blog blog Blog Blog Blog Blog blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog blog blog blogging bloggers imblogging Blog Blogs Blogging Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Weblog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Weblog Blog Weblog Blog Blog Blog Weblog Weblog Blog Blog Weblog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Blog Moblog

Well, there's no real synonym for "blog". Besides which, we get the exact same effect with just about any noun; cheese, fear, dog etc. That an article on blogs contains the word "blog" a lot shouldn't be too surprising... Laïka 09:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, no 'BlogBlog'? I want my money back.--Irbdavid 16:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were once called 'weblogs' .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.96.100 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blog&oldid=167750087"