Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in New York Times: blog trolling 101

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

Hitler :) — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:05:59 -0000

Funny: “Hitler probably blogged" :)

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

david usher — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:42:55 -0000

im not sure about death yet, but blogging can certainly drive you to drink. link baiting bloggers about blogging, thats just too easy.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

Tish Grier — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:43:28 -0000

Matt,

Agreed. making it in blogging probably does indeed have the same or at least a similar amount of stress as making it in any high-volume, hyperactive business (I'm reminded of friends who used to own a gaming company.... or any start-up....)

and I too liked Doc's response. You should check out dana boyd's and Renee Blodgett's as well.

Now that it's midnight, I can write mine ;-)

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

Daniel Gibbons — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:40:24 -0000

One thing I've learned from various start-up experiences (some moderately successful, some so-so, some outright failures, others just too early to know) is that the people who *talk* (or, I suppose, blog) about how hard they're working, their insane hours, etc, are usually among the least productive.

Even the successful blogs seem to validate this truth, in that volume always seems to trump quality. That is, the focus is on generating as many posts as possible to chase pageview growth that I'm sure is accompanied by bottom-feeding and even declining CPM rates. It's much easier in the short term to assume the position of sweatshop 2.0 rather than be innovative and work out how to create a property that will attract a sustained, high-value audience and drive up those CPMs.

It's interesting that all of the examples cited are technology-related blogs, which perhaps does nothing more than reveal that the tech/geek audience simply isn't attractive to the mainstream advertisers who spend 90% of the ad dollars. Combine low barriers to entry with a product the market doesn't value very highly and a sweatshop is all-but inevitable.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

KMB — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:37:27 -0000

Yes, I found the piece a bit alarmist, seems a bit anecdotal (someone pointed out the Times highlights a couple of deaths, one heart attack, etc) -- if suddenly, hundreds of bloggers were dropping dead, then perhaps we'd have something. But I was surprised, however, that the article doesn't touch the issue of journalistic integrity or accuracy. My biggest concerns with bloggers rushing to get their story out their first is accuracy in reporting. Are these guys verifying their sources, confirming with multiple sources, etc?

Truth is, the blogosphere has muscled its way into traditional media waters (I just canceled all my newspapers) and the more people rely on bloggers for news, the more the responsibility to be accurate weighs upon them.

Watch "All the Presidents Men" a few times and watch Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein check their sources a hundred times before going with the story.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

sachman — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:06:14 -0000

NYT should have done a story on the real epidemic in America - the 24/7 around-the-clock internet economy...

http://tinyurl.com/3paf74

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

mathewi — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:10:02 -0000

I agree, Alan -- and that's a good point about the unsustainability,
or the competitive threat from those who blog for free. That's
something that is affecting all media. As I said to Paul, I wish Matt
had spent a bit more time on that and a bit less on the "blogging will
kill you" idea.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

alan p — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:01:02 -0000

Matthew, like Paul Kedrosky above I think the real story here is the emergence of the piece-work blogging industry, and I suspect that segment does fit his model well.

People who are earning a living elsewhere and blogging for free are just not part of this game - ironically they (we) are the ones crashing the piecework market, which imho makes it unsustainable.

Anyway, these thoughts in more depth here:

http://broadstuff.com/archives/833-Bloggers-vs-...

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

mathewi — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:34:03 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Tish. And I wasn't saying that blogging -- or
rather, trying to turn a blog into a business -- isn't stressful. But
is it any more inherently stressful than trying to turn a love for
bicycle repair or hair-styling into a business? Probably not.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

Tish Grier — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:30:13 -0000

Hi Matt...
Actually, I found some grains of truth in the Times article. Sure, it had its link-baiting hype potential, but then again so have all those other articles over the past 2-3 years in pubs like BusinessWeek and New York Magazine that shrieked "you too can make big bucks from blogging!" (and then went on to profile Arianna Huffington and Mike Arrington and Josh Marshall and the scant few others that make big blog money....)

Thing is, when you *are* doing blogging as a career or career path (as I have for the past two years--with a modicum of success) it *is* a lot of stress. It's sometimes a lot of long hours for not a lot of pay. It's having no boundaries in your life because you have to get a project completed, or a client's in need of something ,by an insanely short deadline. It's trying to come up with the right "conversational tone" for a marketing campaign. It's trying to write in a way that's going to get the eyeballs of the 18-34s while getting the jobs and respect from the 34-54s.

It only gets easier when you've put together a decent reputation and people are willing to take a chance with you (but it's still pretty tough.) Even then, the standards are high because you are working in a field that is brand new, that has no hard stats to back it up, and that many are looking to be the savior for industries with failing business models.

It won't kill you, but the stress will get to you if you're looking to be Arrington or Marshall or to go viral like Coke and Mentos or Lenovo. If you keep perspective, though, and not measure your success by the successes of others, then you'll be ok. Easier said, however, than done.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

mathewi — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:09:02 -0000

You know what's even richer, Carlton? You just posted a lame,
derivative comment on my mediocre mumblings. Here's a thought: how
about coming up with something original? Or better yet, give me a
link to the blog where you're generating all those stimulating,
original and thought-provoking posts, and I'll be sure to drop by.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

carlton benjamin — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:55:10 -0000

wow, that's rich: a newspaper guy like you taking pot shots at the ny times from your comfortable perch at a toronto rag. the fact that the times presented another slant on today's events touched off the predictable bitchmeme and you just couldn't resist piling on with yet more mediocre mumblings..

whatever. but here's a thought: instead of doing your derivative daily, why not surprise the world with an original story. i know - that involves actual WORK. so...probably not.

LOL

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

Karoli — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:47:22 -0000

I agree with you 300% about this. My first instinct when I read that article yesterday was to want to find a way to slap some folks upside the head and remind them that they are a) making a good deal of money that they wouldn't otherwise be making; and b) CHOOSING to push themselves in their lifestyle.

If Mike Arrington has a sleep disorder as a result of blogging, it's not the blog's fault. It's his type A personality that pushes him to be first with the next shiny thing.

For those who have a problem with this, I can only suggest a perspective adjustment which would include stepping back and asking whether the world will still turn if that blog post waits to be written until the next day. I assure you it will. Then they should step away from the computer and the gadgets, enjoy the lovely spring day with some good friends, and realize that the world still turned.

Life's too short to lose sleep and sanity over blogging. Wars, famine, starvation, etc...maybe. But not blogging.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

pkedrosky — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:57:03 -0000

Yup, and that's sort of my point. I thought he was going the Portfolio
death-by-piecework-pay approach, rather than
bloggers-have-no-self-discipline. As always, heart attacks trump economics.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

mathewi — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:34:02 -0000

I think Matt knew exactly what he was doing -- and had the effect he
intended. But I wish he had spent more time talking about the
economics of blogging, by maybe bringing in some of the commentary
about Valleywag's pay structure, etc., rather than going straight for
the easy and inflammatory "it causes heart attacks" angle.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

pkedrosky — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:16:27 -0000

I generally agree. The piece is inflammatory and overdone, but my friend Matt at the Times is too smart to not know he was poking bloggers with sharp sticks.

That said, there is something to say for noticing the emergence of a piecework occupation where there is an economic incentive to produce 24x7, as well as immense pressure (on many) to stay hooked to newswires. No surprise that such a "job" has a tendency to burn people out.

Re: New York Times: blog trolling 101

MarkDykeman — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:13:44 -0000

It feels a bit odd to know that my own blog contributed to something hitting the front page of Techmeme. Actually, I never knew how Techmeme worked before reading this article - I had never taken the time.