Thursday, July 28, 2005
Well, well, well, we got ourselves a little review on
Blog Advance and, to be honest, I'm not sure how to take it. He didn't seem to review us as such, not on our merits, or lack of, anyway. He did tick us off a little for having the temerity to refer to ourselves as a blog - his logic would suggest that he wouldn't consider photoblogging as a genuine form of blogging. However, he wasn't rude but I would have to take issue on a couple of points. First off, after declaring that we shouldn't be so delusional as to imply we're a blog, he mentioned this - the musings - section and went to say that this section was more like a blog. Now, correct if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make this a blog? Aren't we now a blog that deliver cartoons aswell, even under his apparently narrow definition? The second thing I take issue with - he states that we look like an attempt to make money. We run ads, which he normally takes umbrage with but on this occasion doesn't mind. How very nice of him. We run ads because I pay hosting bills which, considering we offer cartoon feeds to other sites and blogs, are quite high and I'd like to offset the cost of that to myself. We have a shop, which hasn't made a single sale, because it's free and we thought it'd be nice to have one. But if we were trying to make money, and I really can't overemphasise this, this isn't the way we'd would be going about it. This site is about showing our funny cartoons. We want to earn money from them and I'll make no apologies for that. But if this was about making money, this isn't the way we'd go about it. The third, and last, thing I take umbrage with is his snottiness; plain and simple. He's a bit like the music reviewer dismissing a techno band because they don't use real instruments. Blogs have evolved, why don't you? And before anyway jumps on me, I'm not being bitter, Christ knows I can be but not this time. Nothing he says in the 'review' is offensive. He doesn't say anything bad about us and he's quite polite in his judgement of us. But, still, it's ill-informed(he refers to 'a cartoonist' when even a cursory reading of the site would show that there are two of us') and even then you wouldn't mind if, and this is where he really falls down, it was an even remotely entertaining read. Nobody actually cares what a reviewer thinks, we've all got our own minds to make decisions with. Reviews should be like any other area of the media, they should be entertaining and that's where he fell down the most. If you want to read an entertaining blog review, go to
blogg'd. He's not fair or impartial but he's a damn good read.
Blog Advance reads like a tourist brochure.
In other news: The IRA has issued a
statement declaring an end to armed conflict. John Rogers has an interesting piece on the concept of
4th generation warfare as applied to the evolving media landscape (thanks to Xerex at
Comixpedia).
Make guns out of office equipment (thanks to
NSFW).
Cork City are playing the second leg of their
UEFA cup tie tonight - they're 2-0 up form the first leg, so things are looking good.
4 Comments:
It's a very positive review of the site design though... which is encouraging, seeing as we've done quite a bit of work to get the navigation to where it is.
The blog thing is interesting. I have to kind of defend him in a way, but only because we're ahead of our time Bif. I like your comment "Blogs have evolved, why don't you?", however it might be more correct to say "Blogs are evolving, why don't you?" - and we are part of that evolvement (is that a word?).
We're cutting edge dude. Seriously though, strict definition of a blog probably does preclude us, but it would have been nice if he had seen that and applauded us for our innovative use of blogging software.
Anyone else have an opinion on what makes a blog?
Is it strictly a personal journal?
Use of blogging software?
Frequently updated webpage?
Does it have to have comments?
Etc etc...
I can't be cutting edge. I wear cardigans for God's sake.
Seriously though, what really baffled me though was why he even bothered. If he doesn't consider us to be a blog and he's running a blog review site, then why didn't he just refuse to review us.
Hi... I most certainly didn't mean to be offensive, or to be negative in any way. I did enjoy the cartoons, and etc. Like I said about Bud Buckley... I see ads, I see a shop= I see someone trying to make some money. I admit, on my personal, secret blog, I have ads. I am a sell out. I am not saying you are... i like the cartoons. Everyone wants to make a buck, I was not begrudging you. I like your site. The only reason I was saying its not particularly a blog is because the "cartoon" page was only updated weekly, which seemed a little low, and since your "musings" page was updated more often, I decided that was "more" blog-like. No offense meant, at all. I like the site.
Yeah, and I have to say I probably came off harsher than I meant to. I really can't take umbrage with anything you said in the review really. I mostly just thought you could have qualified what you were saying better.
Post a Comment
<< Home