I have one comment, though. Carr writes about how vexing it is for some that it’s hard to get A-listers to link to their blogs. Carr quotes Jay Rosen, an NYU journalism prof who pens Pressthink, as saying that the best way to get a link from him is to write a post about one of his posts. “He carefully monitors mentions of his work in other blogs, he said, and he frequently provides links back to them, at least when they have some substance.”
Carr then notes:
The best way, by far, to get a link from an A List blogger is to provide a link to the A List blogger. As the blogophere has become more rigidly hierarchical, not by design but as a natural consequence of hyperlinking patterns, filtering algorithms, aggregation engines, and subscription and syndication technologies, not to mention human nature, it has turned into a grand system of patronage operated – with the best of intentions, mind you – by a tiny, self-perpetuating elite. A blog-peasant, one of the Great Unread, comes to the wall of the castle to offer a tribute to a royal, and the royal drops a couple of coins of attention into the peasant’s little purse. The peasant is happy, and the royal’s hold over his position in the castle is a little bit stronger.
I’m not inclined to put much energy into disputing that suggestion – I think it’s largely true, although I think the reason is innocent enough – how else would one come to the attention of any one busy person? And I doubt that the ‘sphere is hierarchical because of the technology; I think Carr’s last point is most accurate – life is hierarchical – it’s the way humans organize themselves in just about any social structure they construct.
But I would have riffed off of Rosen’s other point: “at least when they have some substance.” The A-listers are A-listers for two reasons – history of course, but also quality (and for some, the former carries more weight than the latter). And a significant reason that non A-listers don’t give that link back is because it’s just not worth giving – the writing simply does not merit the mention. Much of what is written, after all, deserves obscurity. The barriers are now gone, but our appetite for reading writing of quality remains. Absent editing, how to filter what is worth one’s attention? I don’t see why blog writing should be any different from any other creative activity – quality matters, is noticed, and distinguishes those who offer it from those who don’t. Few have it; many don’t and toil away in obscurity (been to Nashville lately?) until their will fails, others don’t but don’t particularly care and continue whether anyone notices or not. Expecting A-listers to give mentions to much of what is written in the ‘sphere today is simply unrealistic.
Innocent fraud? Perhaps. But I think it’s just life. It’s exciting. But it’s not for everyone.
Nick’s a master of the curmudgeonly art but he also talks a lot of common sense. He’s one of those guys you either ove or hate with little room for grey areas. Personally, I find much of what he says thought provoking. That’ll do for me.
Mike Arrington on the other hand seems to have a personal problem with Nick. Remember when he ‘resigned’ from the Gillmor Gang because Nick was on the show? Now he asks if he’s an Asshole. Mike might like to read Bob Sutton on the issue of Assholes. And remember that when you point the finger, there’s always 3 pointing back.
Mike’s hit a sweet spot at the right time with a view to making money. Fair play to the man. But he’ll find out very quickly that success in one publishing genre doesn’t automatically flow into others. And there will always be others waiting in the wings to take him out. Funny enough, I don’t hang on Mike’s every word. Or read his stuff that often. Why? He doesn’t influence me that much whereas Nick does. And aq fair number of folk Mike’s never heard of but who wield enormous influence in their respective spaces. Because it is influence not absolute claimed readership that matters. IMO.
A transparent — and liquid — market for the ad spaces on single-creator media solves the problem, as adbitrageurs will profit from identifying and helping to popularize undervalued blogs…
Rob
Thanks for the clarification – I think you’re right that we probably agree more than differ on this.
I think you’re right to bring up the importance of bloggers’ history of writing. That stability and predictability is probably key to becoming a top blogger.
I disagree, though, that the popularity of so-called a-listers has much to do with quality writing. It has more to do with their writing habits – making frequent posts taking popular viewpoints about whatever the buzz of the day is.
I also disagree with the idea that when Nick Carr, Rob Hyndman or anyone else fails to get linked to by a-listers that it is because their “writing simply does not merit the mention.” Writing that deserves reflection or consideration just isn’t juicy gossip.
People like to think that cream rises to the top, but in a homogeonized world, that isn’t always the case.
If a writer is tired of blogging in relative obscurity, there are simple, obvious ways to change that: write about today’s buzz; write stuff that reinforces people’s world view, by either taking a popular view or an extreme view people can react to; link to popular blogs; and make your writing gossipy (snarky). Of course, doing this is may also gut one’s writing of whatever unique qualities it may have.
Carr’s idea that the blogosphere has created a self-perpetuating hierarchy seems to have a lot of truth to it. What few seem to be thinking about, though, is that the natural desire to climb this hierarchy seems to be dumbing down what we write, what we read and what can find on the Web.
Elle,
I didn’t actually say “a history of quality writing” – I said because of history, and because of quality, and for many the former outweighed the latter. I think many so-called A listers are such just because they’ve been blogging for a long time, and have managed to hold onto an audience because it’s a small world. Ephemeral piffle? No question.
If top bloggers are popular because they reinforce world views, I think that says more about popularity than blogging, frankly. The people I read are on my list because of quality. Frequency and timeliness rarely have anything to do with it – I’m not looking for news. I’m looking for smart minds that provoke me. So, Nick Carr and Jeff Jarvis, for example.
I suspect that you and I are more in agreement than might seem to be the case, and the difference may lie more in a semantic distinction over what an A lister is, than anything else ….
[...] There are, however, some who happen to agree with Nick. Rob Hyndman for instance. Kent Newsome for another. You can add me to that list as well. [...]
Rob
Your suggestion that so-called a-list bloggers are where they are because of a history of quality writing seems flattering to bloggers, but not very accurate.
Top bloggers are popular because: they are interesting; they write about timely, popular topics; and they reinforce popular world views. The last two reasons have less to do with good writing than they do with water cooler gossip.
Looking at blog-tracking services, you find that most of the big discussions are ephemeral piffle. You’ll find all the a-list bloggers weighing in and offering comments that rarely qualify as good writing. Instead, they typically offer a perspective on the current buzz that reinforces popular world views.
This would all be relatively inconsequential, if this churn of low-quality writing and me-too opinionating didn’t have such a big effect on search engines. As time goes on, search engine results are increasingly being dominated by shallow blog-style commentary from popular blogs.
There is a lot of great writing in the blogosphere – but suggesting that it’s coming from the a-listers is a mistake. The a-list bloggers are people that are effective at writing for the blogosphere. Unfortunately, what makes them so effective often makes their writing insubstantial.
[...] Also, Nicholas seems to have at least two readers: reaction to his thoughts from Michael Arrington and Rob Hyndman. [...]
[...] Rob Hyndman writes about Carr’s Rosen example: [...]
[...] So I’ll be a good blogosphere citizen by giving some link love to Rex Hammock, for responding to Nick with a funny counter fairytale, and to Rob Hyndman, for not being afraid to admit that he reads Nick Carr and for advancing the thinking on the topic rather than just reacting emotionally to it. [...]
as usual, nicely put.
mark