Comments on: The Syntagma theory on the division of the Blogosphere http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/ The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:18:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Footsteps in the Mirror » The Eventual Failure Of PPS http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-44571 Footsteps in the Mirror » The Eventual Failure Of PPS Tue, 16 Aug 2005 05:52:31 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/#comment-44571 [...] with new ideas for a project I'm working on and I stumbled upon this this article here and here which writes about the "Syntagma Theory" and ho [...] [...] with new ideas for a project I’m working on and I stumbled upon this this article here and here which writes about the “Syntagma Theory” and ho [...]

]]> By: http://www.feedwriter.com/?p=21 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-44218 http://www.feedwriter.com/?p=21 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:44:20 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/#comment-44218 [...] ospheres. Interesting, and I suggest reading the whole thing AND the comments, and to read Duncan's post about it over at the Blog Herald as we [...] [...] ospheres. Interesting, and I suggest reading the whole thing AND the comments, and to read Duncan’s post about it over at the Blog Herald as we [...]

]]> By: Gone Away http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-44112 Gone Away Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:41:54 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/#comment-44112 I think the point of John's division of the blogosphere into three parts is an attempt to introduce some order (and therefore more targeted and specific) into out thinking on the subject. Sure, we can argue over whether it's the right way to view it or whether we should be dividing it at all, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. It's a theoretical proposition, that's all, and we either use it or invent a better one. I think the point of John’s division of the blogosphere into three parts is an attempt to introduce some order (and therefore more targeted and specific) into out thinking on the subject. Sure, we can argue over whether it’s the right way to view it or whether we should be dividing it at all, but that doesn’t really get us anywhere. It’s a theoretical proposition, that’s all, and we either use it or invent a better one.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-44103 Seth Finkelstein Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:07:32 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/#comment-44103 My schema is the kind of audience a person writes for: one/few/many one == diarist, writing for themselves, the journal-keepers. few == chat, interested *primarily* in social events with friends, likely knows every reader. many == punditry, addressing (hopefully) more people than they know personally. The "one" and "few" writers are by far the majority, and the evangelists want to claim them because it pumps the numbers (a zillion bloggers! == diarists). Inversely, the marginalized blogger-pundits can be told by the evangelists that they should be happy to write a blog-diary, as so many other people are. Moroever, diaries can by hyped as "citizen journalism", while irresponsible and absuive punditry can be excused as personal diary. So there's a huge incentive to conflate these very different kinds of writing. My schema is the kind of audience a person writes for: one/few/many

one == diarist, writing for themselves, the journal-keepers.

few == chat, interested *primarily* in social events with friends, likely knows every reader.

many == punditry, addressing (hopefully) more people than they know personally.

The “one” and “few” writers are by far the majority, and the evangelists want to claim them because it pumps the numbers (a zillion bloggers! == diarists). Inversely, the marginalized blogger-pundits can be told by the evangelists that they should be happy to write a blog-diary, as so many other people are.
Moroever, diaries can by hyped as “citizen journalism”, while irresponsible and absuive punditry can be excused as personal diary.

So there’s a huge incentive to conflate these very different kinds of writing.

]]> By: John (SYNTAGMA) http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-44096 John (SYNTAGMA) Mon, 08 Aug 2005 09:13:26 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/#comment-44096 Don't let's get stuck in the idea that Tertiary bloggers only ever talk about the blogosphere. We know they do a lot, but that example was only a hook to illustrate the concept. I agree with Gordon that there are vertical divisions, like language, for example. I live 60 miles from France, yet I know two French bloggers, both of whom write good English. And how many of the millions of Primary Chinese bloggers will we ever get to access, let alone know. As for Duncan's point about inclusivity, sure, and that's why the division is horizontal, based on motivation, not racial, language, location etc. I think this tells us more about bloggers because it is inclusive. What stands out in my mind, and divides the blogosphere more completely, is the intention of the blogger. The Tertiary Blogosphere is a quantum leap away from the Primary and contains the seeds of the mainstream media of the 21st century. It's only a model, but it does work on a number of levels. Don’t let’s get stuck in the idea that Tertiary bloggers only ever talk about the blogosphere. We know they do a lot, but that example was only a hook to illustrate the concept. I agree with Gordon that there are vertical divisions, like language, for example. I live 60 miles from France, yet I know two French bloggers, both of whom write good English. And how many of the millions of Primary Chinese bloggers will we ever get to access, let alone know.

As for Duncan’s point about inclusivity, sure, and that’s why the division is horizontal, based on motivation, not racial, language, location etc. I think this tells us more about bloggers because it is inclusive. What stands out in my mind, and divides the blogosphere more completely, is the intention of the blogger. The Tertiary Blogosphere is a quantum leap away from the Primary and contains the seeds of the mainstream media of the 21st century. It’s only a model, but it does work on a number of levels.

]]> By: Duncan http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-44094 Duncan Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:56:50 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/#comment-44094 Gordon I agree fully because there is a cross over between all three. I should have mentioned that one of my initial throwbacks to Johns concept of the tertiary level is the label of talking about blogs, because I automatically presumed he was talking about people who talk about the blogosphere as a concept, but it needs to be taken more broadly, take say Engadget for an example, they don't talk about the blogosphere but they do refer to news on other blogs,so you've got to take it in a broader sense, but again, I share you concerns as I do with any labels. Dooce is a fine example, although in terms of the A List argument she's pretty high profile, even if she mainly blogs about her own experiences. Perhaps John should have articulated his definition of tertiary better? Gordon
I agree fully because there is a cross over between all three. I should have mentioned that one of my initial throwbacks to Johns concept of the tertiary level is the label of talking about blogs, because I automatically presumed he was talking about people who talk about the blogosphere as a concept, but it needs to be taken more broadly, take say Engadget for an example, they don’t talk about the blogosphere but they do refer to news on other blogs,so you’ve got to take it in a broader sense, but again, I share you concerns as I do with any labels. Dooce is a fine example, although in terms of the A List argument she’s pretty high profile, even if she mainly blogs about her own experiences. Perhaps John should have articulated his definition of tertiary better?

]]> By: Gordon http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/comment-page-1/#comment-44093 Gordon Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:47:04 +0000 http://www.blogherald.com/2005/08/08/the-syntagma-theory-on-the-division-of-the-blogosphere/#comment-44093 The horizontal model is a reasonable idea, and does offer some nice "labels" but is ultimately doomed to failure. Why? Because it's too restrictive. What of those who enjoy BOTH "communicating with friends" AND discussing the aspects of the "blogosphere" and whatnot? Where do they fit? Had there been some mention of a vertical division across and through these horizontal boundaries I might be willing to consider this idea, and yes I think the "tertiary" group will (has?) spawn some "mega-bloggers". However it won't JUST be those who are discussing the blogosphere. Case in point. Dooce. One of the best known blogs and hardly ever mentions "blogosphere". I doubt she'll be the only exception to these rules. The horizontal model is a reasonable idea, and does offer some nice “labels” but is ultimately doomed to failure.

Why? Because it’s too restrictive. What of those who enjoy BOTH “communicating with friends” AND discussing the aspects of the “blogosphere” and whatnot? Where do they fit?

Had there been some mention of a vertical division across and through these horizontal boundaries I might be willing to consider this idea, and yes I think the “tertiary” group will (has?) spawn some “mega-bloggers”. However it won’t JUST be those who are discussing the blogosphere.

Case in point. Dooce. One of the best known blogs and hardly ever mentions “blogosphere”. I doubt she’ll be the only exception to these rules.

]]>