Talk:Blogger (service)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Blogging (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Blogging, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Designs available[edit]

I think more details and recent changes/updates should be added in this section, such as:description of seven views, mobile template, customize Dynamic Views. Mavisjheng (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Blogger Mobile[edit]

I'd like to add " Blogger Mobile" a new section. How's that? (Dawchihliou (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC))


Does anybody know about the etymology of blogger? Is it indeed "a coined word created by Pyra Labs"? --Christopherlin 07:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ev coined the name for the Pyra service. For a while Pyra was all about "Pyra the app" and Blogger was just a little proof of concept thing they threw together. But the word "blogger" was probably in existence--I was around then but don't remember the chronology. "(We)blog" was a recent coinage; I don't remember if anyone extended it to "blogger" before Blogger but I suspect so. · rodii · 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
But this article is about the web publishing service founded by Pyra labs. If you want to start an article about "the concept of blogger" you could do that--but I suspect it will end up merged with Blog. · rodii ·
I think blog is a short form of weblog. And from there derived “blogger”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:34, 6 April 2005
I believe the primary understanding of the word blogger is someone who maintains a blog, the service provided by Pyra Labs is not that important. In my opinion this should be reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:00, 6 August 2005
blog comes from weblog which comes from web log which comes from a ship captain logging every where they went. 04:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) - and I know what i am talking about.

I agree with blog from web-log, although the ships' captain thing is new. Log is shorter than journal or diary, easier to type and say. Blogger the name would just be a description of the service like "Box".net or "Rapidshare". Trademarks whatever belong to respective owners. (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

The last two paragraphs under "History" are virtually identical to those found on the Blogger website. I would fix them were it not for my relative inexperience with these features. Those paragraphs were added August 19th by MySchizoBuddy.

Ocean57 04:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Blogger Logo Problem[edit]

The Blogger logo (the thumbnail) is not working. Somebody please fix it. :)

Fixed --bdude Talk 07:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

blog publishing service != blog hosting service[edit]

Am I mistaken in thinking that blogger is not a blog hosting service, but blogspot is? Blogger is the publishing software, and it doesn't care where the hosting service is. I think these should be un-conflated, but I'm not sure exactly how to characterize blogger itself, as opposed to blogspot. --rodii 22:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, blogspot redirects to, so clarification could go to that. --Christopherlin 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but interesting. Will think about it. rodii 02:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, so blogspot doesn't (yet) have its own article, just a redirect. Blogspot is the hosting service affiliated with, so I'm thinking something along the lines of a mention of blogspot in the lead. It's kind of not like how has a separate article from WordPress, and TypePad from Movable Type. Should blogspot have a separate article, then? --Christopherlin 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC) is a way for Blogger to distinguish againsts its own sub-domains, such as etc. --> it's instead of having it like So, Blogger is web logging system - publishing and hosting. --joec89
We're aware of what is. But since you can use Blogger to publish on non-blogspot sites, they are distinct services. · rodii · 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree they seem like distinct services. But, does Blogger/Google make this distinction? I think Google see it as joec89 says, anyone cares to ask? Yubal 04:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Non-google hosting of Blogger blogs will end on Match 2010
         I agree with them too

How come Blogger (service) is free?[edit]

Does anybody know where the money for this comes? Is it just the redirects to google news and google adsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:23, 3 April 2006

Probably because everything Google does is free? AdSense is not mandatory and is disabled by default! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


In the facts and figures box on the left, it says that Blogger was created by Google Inc. Considering that Google only bought the service, doesn't this mean someone else actually created it? Like... blogger?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, Blogger was the product, the company was Pyra Labs. · rodii · 11:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, fixed--good catch. · rodii · 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


The Trivia section sounds like an advertisement for Firefox. If it is important to note that is optimized for Firefox, then that should be mentioned somewhere above. But this entire section should be deleted as POV. --mtz206 20:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! I deleted it. · rodii · 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blogger membership figures[edit]

Does anyone know how many users Blogger has? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to know. --Scotteh 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to Blogger[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was do not move. Consensus is to move somewhere besides Blogger. Since that would not require administrator assistance, I am simply closing this. Feel free to continue the discussion as to the correct final location. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move[edit]


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support Make article "Blogger" with a redirect from "" --mtz206 (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, In this case, the more common definition of "blogger" (for which there is no current article, but could and probably should be) should take precedence over a website called Blogger. HGB 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "Blogger" could easily refer to a person who blogs... no necessarily a website called --Pjvpjv 03:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment If so, then Blogger should be a disambig for Blogger (person) and or something like that. --mtz206 (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Not as "", but maybe as Blogger (website)? ALso, please keep in mind that the current "Blogger" link directs to this article.–- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree - it shouldn't go to "Blogger" but to "Blogger (website)" Alternatively, it could be moved to "Blogspot" as that's how it's refered to by many people (to avoid confusion, and because that's where the actual blogs exist.) --Tim4christ17 09:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So, are we arguing that Blogger should be an article about "one who blogs", with a {{For2}} tag pointing to Blogger (website)? I'd support that. ( should be a redirect, if anything) --mtz206 (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Three points: (1) I am not sure we have anything encyclopedic (i.e., more than a dicdef) to say about "one who blogs," so I don't see that being a main article. Am I wrong? What would the content of Blogger-the-person be like? (2) Not all Blogger blogs are hosted on Blogspot. (3) I think it should be Blogger (web application) or Blogger (company). Some Blogger users never actually visit the website after they sign up--it's the service that is important, not the site. Let's try to sort this out before we do any moves. · rodii · 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, As said, Blogger could define a person who blogs. --yongblood 17:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment: Then, I see, there is an overall consensus for changing the name of the article to Blogger (insert something here). I think maybe Blogger (service) is the best - it could then refer to the web service that allows one to make and publish blogs, or the service then the allows people to host their blogs on Blogspot. The problem is actually, I hear much more people say "go to my Blogger" than go to my Blogspot. We should address both of them in one article, -putting them in two seperate ones would be confusing. Also, as another side note, I believe Pyra Labs coined the term "Blogger" before the term came into widespread usage among speakers of the English language - correct me if I'm wrong. Pyra Labs was founded in 1999, and the term "blogger" began to be used widely starting from approximately 2003-2004.–- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments here:

Just be bold and move it, with an explanation in the edit summary and here. · rodii · 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would move it myself, however there are problems when trying to move it. I believe that an administrator had to first delete the exisiting "Blogger" article, then move it. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 23:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it should be moved to Blogger (website) because it does not have .com in its name and as mentioned above, 'blogger' is a general term for someone who blogs. Perhaps redirect 'blogger' to 'blog' with a 'Blogger redirects here...' top disambiguation on top of blog. In any case, this is a tough one. -newkai | talk | contribs 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blogger redirect, again[edit]

Perhaps a better redirect for blogger would simply be to blog (rather than a stub "one who blogs"). Seems more links into blogger would actually want information on blogging in general, not --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true, and it's a good idea - but here we're trying to determine the moving of the site itself, though the term "blogger" is now of importance as well. Blogging has received so much attention in recent times that any changes made will certainly be really big. Any more ideas? –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 06:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a dab page is the way to go instead of a redirect. Most people entering that search term will be looking for Blogger the app, I think, and be surprised when they go to blog. How about this as a dab page:
  • A blogger is someone who maintains a weblog.
  • Blogger is a weblog publishing service owned by Google.
Something like that. I used kungming's proposed Blogger (service)--makes sense to me. · rodii · 12:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, rodii! has now moved and a disambiguation page has been made for Blogger. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 16:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks sweet! I tweaked the dab page a bit. Thanks for taking the initative on this. · rodii · 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogger Features[edit]

"Direct posting to a Blogger site from Microsoft Word 2007."

Microsoft just seems to use the Blogger API, so I don't think this is a major Blogger feature. There are 100s of other tools that do the same, but they haven't been included have they ? Also wasn't it supposed to be a "Other Features" (of Blogger) section. So removing it.--Milki 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Removed Spam from He/She was trying to promote their own blog in the External Links Section.

Is it possible to protect the External Link Section Alone.--Milki 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, it's just spam; there's a lot of it, and you can't get upset about every instance you come across. Just remove it, warn the spammer, and move on. (No, it's not possible to protect part of a page.) · rodii · 16:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


This whole article seems to sound like a bit of an anti-Blogger tone. I've marked it for Neutrality, feel free to discuss any edits that you think should be made before anyone starts to clean up. P3net 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I went back and reread the article, and in retrospect just the short "Problems" section seems to be biased. I've marked just it. Anyone care to rewrite it? P3net 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I revised the article, deleted the part in parenthesis because I felt it did not strictly fall under the heading of "Problems", and improved sentences. Anbellofe 23:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, I not from yur country. But I know you talk like is big important this thing Blog, Blogger, Bloggiest, when's it going? Is not all same?

BPV786 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I concur. The "Problems" section does ring a little biased. The writing sounds puerile to my ears. For example:
"But soon enough, Blogger is working properly and bloggers can resume their blogging activities."
This is great for informal conversation, but writing like this has no business being here. It sounds like an excerpt from a 6th grade composition. I myself am a blogger, and have never heard "bloggered" applied to Blogger. Nor have I heard of stability problems beyond what is normal for a large website. It would be nice to have some kind of citation. At least a human being to say "Yeah, I've experienced this problem and think it's noteworthy."
Can someone please confirm this? If we can't get confirmation of "Problems", I move that the entire section be deleted.
sliver Mon Jan 22 03:54:10 UTC 2007

The "Problems" section is certainly amateurish. However, the use of the "bloggered" expression is easily confirmed by an internet search. A current problem is the "previous posts bug": users who migrate to the new version of Blogger find that the "previous posts" function on an item page lists the most recent ten posts, not the ten posts before the item in question. This can be worked around by changing to hierarchical archives, but only at the cost of losing one's template customizations.

I actually added the point of the new "problems" with Blogger, specifically with the change-over to Blogger Beta, which means that certain features that worked with Old Blogger don't quite work the same, especially when it comes to template editing, but got ditched alongside all the other problems (although it was probably my fault for not citing). Is this worthy? Toquinha 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article is very biased and does not cite any sources for its anti-blogger claims—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't see anything here on the integration of Picasa Web Albums. -- 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


A lot of this article isn't "encyclopaedic". For instance "It currently hosts a huge number of blogs, ranging from the personal to those used purely for business. Some blogs get large numbers of visitors every day yet remain hosted on Blogger's free service." Doesn't sound too professional. Someone fix this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Korean characters?[edit]

Does anyone know what the reason is for all the Korean (or Japanese?) characters that appear on Blogger's (generally English language) blogs? Just curious, and if there's a particular reason I'd be glad to see it stated in the article. InnocuousPseudonym 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Blogger has added the ability to use openid to login for commenting —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogger launch date is what?[edit]

In the article under History, Blogger's launch date is stated as August 23, 1999, but in the sidebar bit the launch date stated is July 31, 2000. Which is it? If both, beta launch and public launch or something similar, then that requires clarification if not explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad while editing today, removed that line without noticing it's 1999. But yes, the launch date does need to be cleared up. Ankur Banerjee (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Blogspot (still) redirects here but the article does not mention why. A poor sod like me trying to find what Blogspot is left unhelped.Thank you for your time. (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogger Vs. Blogspot[edit]

I think the difference between Blogspot and Blogger should be added. What is the difference anyways? Arigont (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the difference (partly elaborated upon further up on the talk page) is that Blogger is the service, and "blogspot" happens to be the domain name which all Blogger blogs use. For example, let's say we have a blog "tobece", doesn't exist, the blog's address . This is true for all Blogger blogs. [stuff] is reserved for pages that are part of the Blogger website (ie Basically, "blogspot" doesn't exist as its own entity, it's just used by Blogger. If someone wants to add this to the article go ahead, but I'm feeling lazy and I'm not sure if this is really the legit deal, or just my observations. tobytobytobytoby (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a sentence about this in the introductory paragraph. However, this looks quite out of place. What's really needed are more sections about how Blogger works, its features etc. That's a massive job and, given Bloggers lack of die-hard users, probably won't be done soon if ever. ggt500 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Re-add it at the beginning. MASSIVE source of confusion for users new to it or people that have never heard of it, even experienced power users... Cause, yeah, crowd, *shockingly*, there ARE countries (aka major language subsets of the internet) where google flopped and other search engines/"portals" dominate the market... for example, a different multinational like in Japan (Yahoo), a native leader that displaced google like in China (Baidu), or even vicious competition between multiple native market leaders, with Google nowhere in sight and sometimes even entirely unknown to internet-savvy domestic users, such as in Russia/the former Soviet Union (dominated by Russian companies Yandex,, and Rambler). (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Blogspot spam on usenet[edit]

The phenomena of drive-by blogspot spam postings on usenet should be mentioned somewhere (where a post is made consisting of a single line which is the URL to the blog being spamvertized). The motivation for the spam posting should also be explained (eg how it benefits the spammer to post the link in question, what is the likely or desired result of the posting, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Blogger non commercial?[edit]

Blogger seems to be listed as non commercial on this page... but I'm pretty sure it IS commercial? Jackster (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Commercial to those bloggers who choose, perhaps. (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be fixed?[edit]

I'm not exactly the most experienced wikipdian, this entry seems to be seen as not very good, but I'm not exactly sure what needs to be changed? Is it the lists or something else? I'm happy to help, but not exactly sure where to begin...Altairantares (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Source of Turkish ban[edit]

I've removed the [verification needed] tag from this reference as the source seems appropriate to me. Global Voices Online seems to regularly publish reputable articles; in this case, the article cited primary sources from within Turkey and multiple blogs that provided updates and corroborating information. Npdoty (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Can blocked users acces it this way[edit]

  • Use the google blog as an example
  • [[1]] might be blocked in some countries, but [[[2]]] using the ccTLD .pt might not be blocked, can you check on that?
  • TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just found ont that [[3]] works as well

How many blogs?[edit] says “1 300 000 blogs” were blocked in Russia because of IP address blocking. --AVRS (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


I have tried to create a blog with a pseudonym, because I am known with that pseudonym on a few forums. Blogger did not let me do that. Then I have read that other users have tried to use a pseudonym in vain, e.g. . In the page of Wikipedia, I think it would be interesting to note that limitation. --Rene1596 (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The above comment from 2012 raised my interest - Apparently Blogger now allows pseudonyms: when you log in to register for a profile, you have the choice of either a Google+ profile or a "Blogger profile"; the latter has limited functionality - and can be anonymous if you want. That seems to me to be a major change, because the criticisms in the above cited Guardian article were forcefully put. Shouldn't there be a mini-section or at least a mention of this change? I can't add it because I don't know the exact chronology or have sources.

--Northtowner (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rumored deletion of adult blogs in July 2013?[edit]

Apparently a notice was sent out in late June 2013 claiming that any adult blogs with advertising would be deleted in 3 days. zdnet article by Violet Blue. Does anyone know what happened with this? Should it be mentioned in the article? JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Substatntially similar article (citing the zdnet one) from the Guardian: -- JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Another couple articles. Still nothing from *after* June 30th... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This looks like it will probably actually happen Real Soon: [4] and [5] --moof (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

University of Washington scholarships — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blogger (service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Probable Spam? Gräfenberg spot?[edit]

I noticed that under the "Blocking" section of the article, this sentence is written "Blocking of * domains by keyword-based Internet filtering systems is also encountered due to the domain containing the substring "gspot". where gspot is linked to the anatomical wikipedia article Gräfenberg spot. This seems to be clear spam as I don't think blogger has anything directly to do with the Gräfenberg spot. I've never edited wikipedia before and I don't want to break any rules or start any disagreements so I haven't edited the article myself. Slyfin (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)