So a few days ago, my favourite Web2.0 company Digg relaunched its own blog over here.
Sure, there’s a new spash of paint, a nice redesign, reconstituting the blog on a wordpress engine — it looks and feels like a blog.
But is it?
Wikipedia defines a blog as
… a website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order.
Blogs often provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. Most blogs are primarily textual although some focus on photographsphotoblog), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting), and are part of a wider network of social media. (
The term “blog” is a contraction of “Web log.” “Blog” can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.
And by that definition, Digg’s blog IS a blog — but I’m not so sure if it is.
Wikipedia’s definition gets most of it write in describing what blogs are and the content of what most blogs do. But it lacks a functional component.
Blogging is more than just journal entries in a reverse order with links to other blogs.
Blogs are about conversations and interactivity. But whereas instant messaging is a one-to-one conversation, blogging is the essence of a one-to-many conversation.
Conversations involve the give and take of statement and opinion — and in my opinion, when a blog DOESN’T allow for that kind of conversation to happen, in spite of all the physical trappings of a blog, that blog is NOT a blog.
Let’s put it a little more starkly.
A blog without a comments section — or rather, a comments section without any real interaction with the author of the blog — isn’t really a blog.
“Blogs” which involve a reverse chronological entry of entries without comments are nothing more than mouthpieces for the author. Corporate blogs which act in this fashion or nothing more than arms of the public relations department; and, all flogging by Edelman aside, traditional public relations is the diametric opposite of what a blog is meant to do.
Traditional PR is about controlling the conversation and creating an opinion piece. A statement that is carefully constructed after passing through many layers and many hands, so that its not only a marketing piece, but a legal document, and often whitewashed of any vim and passion.
I would argue that Digg’s blog — much like other corporate blogs, is something which has the trappings of a blog — but doesn’t really live up to the spirit of what a blog is supposed to be.
And therefore its a blog, but not a blog.
Which is a shame, really.
For a company which has its roots in a hacker, slash-dot, cum-dark-tipper ethos — which of course is all heavily community based — the lack of ANY comments, or interaction with the authors is not only shameful to its tradition, but only emboldens what many (perhaps only me? :) are thinking.
Digg no longer fights the man — it is the man.
UPDATE — ironically, it really IS — if it gets acquired by News Corp, that is. ;)
