Continue reading… »

Many people consider any rich blogger to be a successful A-list bloggers. Any blogger who does not disclose the amount of money she or he makes, or does not appear to be making money, is not considered an A-list blogger by those same people. Similarly, a website given a very high rank through services like “Technorati Popular Blogs” list tend to be called and considered A-list bloggers. How many blogs can you find on that Technorati list that you like reading on a regular basis?

Non A-list Blogs

In contrast, take the ever-changing “The Reasoner Links” list, which is going to receive another fresh review soon. There are different reasons why a site may be listed on that list. I may find some sites interest, while other times the blogger may be trying something new with the concept of blogging. Some of the sites listed are of other bloggers from the original blogging days who helped define blogging and related, yet now they are not considered A-list bloggers by many people, because those bloggers either do not make a lot of money or they are not considered that important by services like Technorati.

Do you prefer A-list blogs over other blogs?

So, in your view, do you prefer reading A-list blogs over non-A-list blogs? Why or why not?

I would love to hear any opinion on this. Thank you for reading.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

I was reading a blog post by Connor Wilson recently, in which Connors was opposed to the idea of a guy called Franky criticizing Matt Mullenweg regarding the issue of banning sponsored WordPress themes for the WordPress platform. In the post, Connor also said the following:

In the above quote, Connor said that Franky should not use the name of Matt in order to generate traffic for Franky’s site. That made me think: how can one be sure that a blog article really intends to be critical, and how can one be sure when a blog article was written simply to attract traffic? Is there a way to prove that something was written to be critical, or if something was written only to generate traffic? The same idea can be applied to Franky’s post; how can we know he really got affected by Matt’s decision on sponsored WordPress themes, since he is still using the WordPress software on the very site he criticized Matt on?

Some people criticize in order to be heard. Others criticize to get website traffic. Yet others combine the two to get both.

There is nothing wrong with producing quality content and expecting incoming traffic. That is why whenever there is a critical analysis about something, one of the questions that comes to my mind is “Why is he or she interested in this topic?” Similarly, when a post is not a critical analysis and is instead simply criticism about something, I wonder about the same question. Sometimes, people write articles simply to impress readers and generate traffic. Other times, people criticize others because they actually feel they are not satisfied with something.

Is there a way to find out when a blog post was written only to get traffic, or if it was written with at least a little bit intention of sincerely talking about some issue?

That makes me wonder if there is any good way to figure out when a criticizing article was written to be only a linkbait, and when a criticizing article was written because there was something useful to write about. Can I say that Connor was only trying to generate traffic for his site by criticizing Franky, or can I say that Franky was only trying to generate traffic for his site by criticizing Matt? Can they both be sincerely criticizing something they are not happy with? Or could they both be using different names simply to attract traffic? How can you be sure that this very post of mine that you are reading was not written only to generate traffic?

Is it ever possible to criticize someone else without being called a person who only wants publicity and nothing else?

Are stereotyping or misinterpreting writing which criticizes someone or something we value to be written only to generate traffic and for no other benefit? Is writing something to generate traffic always bad? How can we ever criticize anyone or anything without worrying that someone out there may think that we are criticizing intentionally only to get attention for our website? Is anything that is done to earn money or get something like blog traffic not good at all? What level of scale or analysis can be used online to find out the answer?

The answer can very easy or hard, depending on whether or not we have experience with such things in both the online and the offline world.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

1. Importance is based on earnings

   Many people think that the richer a blogger is, the more important that blogger is supposed to be. The next time you run into a blogger and want to act discriminatory, or simply want to stereotype them, simply find out how much money they make, and worship them accordingly.

   This stereotype is the reason why you see so many immature and manipulative bloggers running around claiming authority, when all they have is an authority on the amount of money they make. Have money? Will worship.

2. Intelligence of others is based on their topics of interest

   Because of this stereotype, most personal bloggers and personal blogs are not taken seriously by many in the blogosphere. Sure, talking about overcooking the tuna may be interesting to someone, but you think such bloggers need sympathy and mental help. For you, the only normal bloggers may be the ones who talk about ways to make money, or they talk about topics which make them money, enabling you to use the first point above into your judgment too.

   This stereotype is one of the reasons personal bloggers are considered to be less knowledgeable, and also less important, than many other kinds of bloggers. This very stereotype may also blind you from the fact that personal bloggers shaped the origins and the beginning of the blogging trend. Instead of feeling lucky that you know bloggers and personal bloggers who have defined history for all future bloggers for generations to come, you simply think “A blog about daily life? This blogger has no life!“

3. Disagreements mean there are enemies

   This is one of the classics. If you see a blogger talking about something which disagrees with what you believe either directly or indirectly, you use the offline stereotype regarding disagreements and immediately start considering that blogger to be your life-long enemy. A blogger says Honda is the best but you think Ford is superior? You pray for that blogger’s doom. They eat 3 times a day but you prefer eating 5 times a day? You start attacking them directly and personally for not living their life the way you want them to live their life.

   Everyone can have their own understanding of the world, but this offline stereotype, which even prompts many people to find mirror copies of themselves to date, results in people feeling that the existence of any difference of opinion means we have to learn the art of fist fighting and we have to convert everyone else, by force, to our way of thinking.

4. Intelligence is measured by appearance

   For many people, a poorly designed blog means the blogger in question is stupid. This has something to do with our offline lives; if you see two business people, wearing the same suit and both appearing professional arrive in two different vehicles, one being a brand new car, and the other being a rusty old truck from 1950 with loud, annoying music on, which person would you be more inclined to do business with? Many people, if not most, will be inclined to choose the guy in the new car. Why? Because we care about appearances. You may think bloggers are stupid unless the nice design of a blog makes you want to smell your monitor to see if you can smell the freshness.

   While caring for appearances is important, we forget the fact that sometimes some people cannot fix certain things, or do not know how to. However, this offline stereotype of judging others based on their appearance to think that anyone who does not have a good looking blog is not a good blogger, cannot think logically, cannot writer, cannot communicate, and so on. Is that not sort of similar to what we do in the offline world, where if we are right about someone being careless enough to not take care of their appearance when they possibly can, we start questioning unrelated things about their character also, like loyalty, intelligence, and importance?

5. Ethnicity, gender, political and religious affiliations define a person for you, and not what the person actually does in life

   This can be the classic example for many people. The same way many people categorize and judge others in the offline world based on ethnic background, gender, political and religious affiliations, I am noticing many people judge bloggers based on their similar characteristics. You hate people from certain ethnicities and you run into a blogger from that ethnicity? No problem; you simply stereotype and tell the blogger “How dare you go online and start blogging? People of your type should be banned from blogging.”

   Sure, a blogger may themselves try to promote their ethnicity, gender, political or religious affiliation onto the reader, but you do not need to follow their example. It is better to judge people based on how they relate and value certain things, like religion, than to associate them with a certain religion and treat them the same way you supposedly want to treat everyone from that specific trait or religion.

There you have it. Those are the 5 stereotypical things that I think many people have successfully brought from their offline lives onto the online world. If you want to continue stereotyping in the online world, the above list can serve as a cheat sheet for you to refer to whenever you want to think of solid, proven methods to stereotype bloggers.

What is your opinion about this? Can you think of some other points that allow many of us to categorize and stereotype against bloggers?

Thank you for reading.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

What many people in the online world do not realize is that sharing information has nothing to do with whether you are online or offline; if you share anyone’s personal information with anyone, through any method and in any form, you may be breaking a trust.

I think that in order to build relationships, make friends or even have good contacts, one should prioritize the idea of never revealing anyone’s personal information under any circumstance unless one has specific permission to do so. Otherwise, people who share their personal lives with others will be forced to blame themselves for sharing their thoughts with others.

Sharing people’s personal and private information, that they entrusted you with, in your blog posts should be avoided

Imagine you write a blog post using someone’s personal life situation as even a small indirect example, and then some random commentor dissects that information or the topic in question. Because of that, you have forced someone, who shared that personal information with you, to feel defensive and to feel bad for having their personal lives out in the open for random people to discuss and debate. That is not an act of being considerate to others. That is an act of using others to write blog posts.

Why would you assume that someone would not mind you sharing their personal information?

Personal information is personal information, Assuming things like “I thought you wouldn’t mind…” only makes me think of a few questions: Why would you think that someone would not mind you sharing their personal information? What specific thing prompted you to think that someone would be comfortable with you talking about their personal life with someone else, on a blog or a place like Xanga? What is your reasoning and logic behind such an assumption?

If you ask personal questions, be prepared to keep to yourself any personal answers you receive

Many people consider things like business and blogging ideas to be part of their personal lives too, so it is important to realize when to share any information about other people, and when to simply keep quiet. If you do discuss the information with someone, make sure no one finds out about it. Otherwise, the act of sharing information will result in someone running into trust issues, because of their private information being put into the public world by an inconsiderate person. It is not nice to have someone else suffer because of your actions, is it?

What do you think? If you would like to read more on a related note, Jess has an excellent post about this, titled “How foolish is it to trust?“, which can tell you more about some of the thoughts that can come to mind regarding the topic of trusting others.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

1. Not talking about a job means you have no job

   Many people assume that if someone does not talk much about their offline job, they do not have a job, or they do not have a good job. These people probably cannot understand the fact, easily, that sometimes people simply do not want to talk about something in their personal life as it may be boring, or it may be personal and they may not want to share it with people who are not genuinely interested in knowing.

   I personally get to hear this every other day, since I do not talk about my offline work activities, or anything similar, on my site here or with others that much. Instead of asking, people assume things about my job. I get over 50 calls every day alone related to “work” that I do not get paid for, and I have to meet around 10 people every 2 days or so, directly, in private meetings, to do things related to work, round the clock; sometimes I have to meet people at 3 AM. That is why I am always finding it funny when some people do not ask me about my activities, but simply assume that I do not do anything other than to blog on this site and eat chocolate.

2. Never talking about your offline life means you have no offline life

   Some people assume that if you do not push your offline personal life into the online world, you do not have an offline life. That is why if you remain quiet in a conversation or try to talk about something, people will immediately assume things about you.

   I personally, rarely talk about offline life online, though if someone asks for it, I may answer in detail depending on the person and the situation. However, people will assume things like my relationships, hobbies, views, religion, sexual preference, etc. on an almost constant basis, because I do not talk about my personal life out of the blue in every chat window that can be opened.

3. The more aggressive you are, the more right you are

   This one is a classic. Many people will assume that if they are aggressive about something, they will appear to be right in almost any argument. It is as if the art of being pushy and aggressive and on the offensive becomes more important than the point being argued.

   I see arguments online regularly, where someone will be very aggressive in questioning something, and they will assume that just because they are aggressive means that they will be able to make the other person look bad. Usually, if one is paying attention, it seems that acting aggressive has nothing to do with being rational or logical. Some times people get aggressive even while asking a question, which makes me wonder: “if this person is so tense while simply asking a question through text and over a topic this person does not care about, how easy will it be to control and affect this person’s moods in real life?“

4. The act of acting weird will go unnoticed

   Some people think that since one can hide in the online world, one can do weird things and go unnoticed. This includes copying others, acting weird like blocking others on instant messengers simply because one feels jealous, one talks to someone else only to ask for advice, etc.

   I think it is very easy to both hide and get noticed in the online world. Noticing someone copying ideas can be tricky, but it does not go unnoticed. I notice people copying my writing and other styles all the time, and I also see people taking ideas from the comments they receive and posting them as their own on a regular basis too. These people basically assume that other people will not care in the online world. On the contrary, people do care a lot in the online world if they feel they are being cheated.

5. Inquiring about something means your knowledge is limited

   Many people think that if you ask questions, you do not know anything about some topic. When a person tells me about a feed reader or some new technology, I listen attentively and I ask questions. That act of asking questions makes many people assume that I do not know anything about the thing I am asking about. I personally have a character where I will ask questions even about things I know, since I want to know more and I want to hear about things from other people’s perspectives a lot.

   Sure, when you ask a question, you may not know something about the element that is being asked in the question, but you may know generally about that something. For example, I have rarely been talking about making money online as of today, but I have made a lot of money online through online businesses in the past. That is why it is funny when people approach me and start assuming that I do not know how to make money online, instead of asking me about it. I am guessing this is one of those things you need to brag about so more people can know, including potential employers.

So there you have it. That is a list of 5 random things that many people assume about others online. Can you think of some other things that people assume? Can you relate to something here, or do you have any opinion about any of these points or about assumptions in general?

Thank you for reading.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

Many personal blogs usually take advantage of having password protected entries, like SP’s site. SP could write things about, let’s say, Bes, as in “Bes is so retarded, Bes actually tries to communicate with cats, squirrels, penguins and whales!” SP could then password protect that entry, so that I do not see what she wrote about me.

Password protected content on Non-Personal Blogs

Another way to use password protected entries could be to have content reserved only for a specific type of readers, like readers who pay. A blog or a site could have such premium content, that it could charge readers a monthly fee in order to receive specific or customized passwords to access all the password-protected content. For example, I could have a special subscription section on this site catering to non-personal blog readers, where I have videos of me trying to kidnap whales, but instead I end up getting kidnapped by whales. I could password protect that content, and give Jess that password if Jess pays me $500. Does that sound like a good deal, Jess?

Password protected content has drawbacks too

While password protected content can offer benefits to many blogs, any password protected entries can have drawbacks too, for both blogs and blog readers. Regular visitors may not be able to access information simply because they do not know the password, and thus a blog may get more criticism than praise. Also, people who cannot afford to pay me $500 for my “How to kidnap a whale and get kidnapped instead!” videos may not be able to see the epic tale I have to tell. Password protected entries limit access for many people, and that may not be cool in the eyes of many.

So, do you like having and seeing password-protected entires on blogs? What is your opinion about them?

Please let me know what you think. Thank you.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

• Write personal opinions to share with others.
• Earn money directly through ads on your blog.
• Keep an online diary.
• Practice skills, such as your writing, recording, and other skills.
• Establish an authority on different topics through your blog.
• Promote your offline business.
• Keep in touch with friends or family, or others online.
• Be like others, since others have blogs too.
• Pass time without being bored, and a blog helps you pass time easily.
• Maintain your job, since it may require you to blog.
• Pass a class, since your class may require you to blog or comment on some classwork-related blog.

So, why do you blog? Why do you own or run any kind of a site? Can you think of others reasons for which you may be blogging?

Please let me know what you think of the above, and what you think of this question. Thank you for reading.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

1. You know what will happen

   What is the point of seeing a movie with enthusiasm when you know what will happen through the movie? Movie sequels usually end up being boring because of this exact reason. For example, take Mission Impossible Series. By the time Mission Impossible III came out, one knew that no matter what happens, Tom Cruise, the main character of the movie, will not die in the end.

   On the other hand, take The Last King of Scotland. Neither from the trailer, nor from the first 99% of the movie itself do you realize what will happen in the end. You simply do not know who will die, who will live, etc. That is a good movie, even if many people know a bit about the actual story it was based on.

2. You know what will not happen

   Similar to knowing what will happen, you can know what will not happen and thus not be watching a movie with a 100% surprised interest. Typical date movies and many sequels depend on this reason to market themselves: if you saw XXX: State Of The Union, you probably knew all along that the new XXX will not allow the rebels to take over the government. Period. It’s XXX, and there is a franchise to be made with more sequels, thus XXX can never be wrong and XXX can never lose.

   In contrast, take the movie “1408.” You have no idea what will not happen as the movie progresses, and at some points almost everyone in the theater thought John Cusack was going to die, and those same people later in the movie started wondering if he will hopefully survive. That is what a movie should do; make you wonder, as the movie goes around, about the exact thing the main character is wondering about in a good, intelligent horror movie: surviving!

3. The trailer tells you most of the story

   I love teaser trailers. They are different than the full trailers that tell you the whole story. Teaser trailers are usually half the length of full trailers. I love teaser trailers as they show some glimpse of an upcoming movie without being specific on the exact storyline. The regular trailers, however, tell you a lot about what will happen. Take the new Die Hard 4 trailer. The trailer tells you John Mcclane daughter gets kidnapped by internet terrorists, he saves the country and his daughter, and that along the way some kid ends up being with him the way Samuel L. Jackson was with him. You also get an idea that John Mcclane will not die in the end.

   In contrast to this, consider the current teaser trailer for “I am Legend.” I wish they could keep that trailer and never release any other trailer for the movie. The trailer has me hooked, and I simply cannot wait for the movie to come out. Would you rather see a trailer which tells you that the last human being on this earth is not alone, like Will Smith in the movie, or would you watch a trailer which tells you the whole storyline, that some events caused Will Smith to be the last human in this world, and that the rest of the human beings have all turned into vampires? I would prefer the teaser trailer, whether it is 1 minute long or 5 minutes, which tells me absolutely nothing about the actual storyline other than hints of what I can expect in the movie.

4. The storyline is typical

   How many date movies do you know which have the lead actors and actresses not getting the person they love? How many action movies do you know in which the action hero will save the day? How many big budget action movies these days only have lead actresses as the main character? Halloween is a typical horror movie series where we know the poor psychologically disturbed and traumatized by childhood freak will keep coming back.

   On the other hand, The Descent is not a typical movie, and has an unusual and one of the best storyline of any horror movie in the last 10 years. Similarly, Cast Away was a good movie where in the end, Tom Hanks does not end up with the love of his life, as she has married someone else. Is it not nice to know that a character could still value life even if, unlike typical movie plot lines, the main character ends up being alone?

5. Special Effects are more prioritized than the actual reality of the movie

   Almost every other action movie today wants to use computerized special effects. Even simple car crash scenes are being digitized, and more and more movies are looking crappier instead of looking cooler. Take the movie “Next“, from this year, 2007, which uses special effects in many places and you can notice them. The scene in the first few minutes of the movie, where Nicolas Cage is running away from the cops and crashing into the train, is something that even a 10 year will look at and probably say “Cartoon!”

   On the other hand, take the Mad Max series from 1977, 1981 and 1985, which stars Mel Gibson Max who has gone mad: the computerized special effects for crashing automobiles do not exist in the movies, and the actual stunts, car crash and car chase scenes are still some of the greatest in movie history.

   Another example could be the 4th, 5th and 6th Star Wars episodes, and the first 3. Episodes IV, V and VI were made in the late 70’s and 80’s, while the first three episodes were made in the last 10 years. Episodes 4, 5 and 6 used a lot of effects, and yet, when you saw those movies, you thought “AAAAAH! RUN RUN, GET DOWN!! YEAAAH!!” Why? Because everything in the movie had a realistic look: the flying ships had dents and scratches, creatures had fighting marks and bruises on their faces and bodies, and even buildings showed signs of tear and wear.

   The first, second and third Star Wars Episodes, however, make you say “Wow, nice graphics!” BAM! That is failure right there. The movie production crew has focused on the graphics instead of the storyline, and thus the movie has failed. The movie may have made a lot of money, but any hyped up movie can make a lot of money. The newer 3 episodes have creatures and objects which are shiny, perfect, so unreal that you immediately realize they are computer graphics. In my view, the first 3 released Star Wars episodes used special effects more realistically in the 70’s and 80’s than the the latter 3 released recently.

These reasons are also points you can use to analyze the effectiveness of a movie as a whole and decide whether or not it was a good movie in your opinion.

Consider this: I can guarantee a lot of things in the movies that have not come out yet. Harry Potter and his 2 close friends will not die in the new movie. John Mcclane’s daughter will not die in the new movie, and John will succeed in stopping the internet terrorists.

What is your opinion on this? Can you think of more ways and reasons many movies may not be effective us at all?

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

Following are 10 random reasons which show that you may want to blog regularly because you want to:

1. Have more readers.
2. Have more commentors.
3. Have more search engine exposure.
4. Attract more advertisors for your blog.
5. Tell others about your personal life.
6. Keep an online diary for yourself.
7. Meet online people more in order to make more online friends [different than making online contacts in order to make money].
8. Post more as your current income depends on it.
9. Express your views on a certain issue more; like global warming, the myth of global warming, etc.
10. Showcase skills to potential employers through your blog, like writing, video editing, design, etc.

Do you prefer having a regular blog schedule which depends on some element like time, your offline life, etc? Do you feel obligated to blog on a regular schedule?

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for reading.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

I wonder if many people consider new content, posted on a regular schedule, to be a blog, if that content has one or a combination of the following:

• Time stamp
• Different titles for different content
• A kind of a specific approach to the topics
• Claiming the content to be a blog - if you call it something, some people may call it the same thing instantly
• Allowing comments on the content
• Talking about specific type of content

These points, among many others, are typically found in “blogs.” If you take away all these elements and more from any site, the question moves from “Is this a blog?” to “What elements describe a blog, without which something can absolutely, under any circumstances, can never be a blog?”

Is it regularly updated and posted content? Maybe.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

I wonder if people actually feel that they have caught someone in the “act” if they notice someone trying to impress them. It is as if one was committing a crime by impressing someone. Some times, I see people trying to impress simply to create an impression of appreciation, which is better than lying about appreciating while not doing anything to appreciate. However, some people get upset and say “Oh he/she is just trying to impress me“, even if the person trying to impress has no personal interest other than to show appreciation of some sort.

For example, someone telling you about the origin of coffee may not be because of that person wanting to show-off their knowledge, but to impress you by showing that they want to interact with you through a topic related to the activity you are involved in.

Online, the act of impressing someone can be misunderstood

Online, it can be easy to misunderstand the art and the act of impressing others, and instead one can perceive such things as being part of showing off. Even if such was the case, the aim of such an impression, or such an act of impressing others, solely exists in many people only to make the other person feel appreciated in some manner.

What is your opinion about the possibility that sometimes only trying to impress someone may actually be a good thing? Thanks for reading.

« Show less..

Continue reading… »

The 12 year old won’t give me my $8 back

The 12 year old kid by the street sells me cookies, takes my $10 first and then, only after I have taken the first bite, says that he does not have the $8 change, and that I should come back tomorrow to get discounted cookies from the money he owes me; cannot damn him, since the cookies are either really good or they have drugs in them. The sub-sandwich store gives me a $5 coupon valid for 3 days only for a new sandwich they have, and this sandwich costs $8 more than their current, most expensive sandwich.

I return a defective electronic item I buy at an electronic store to get back my $389 in cash, since I paid cash, and I am told to either wait 5 weeks for a refund check, or to get their store gift card with $389 on it, which I can only use to buy more electronics from the same store.

You want me to pay you to lure me in? Sure.

The funny thing is that despite all the typical bias many people have against businesses and entities which take your money, each one does provide me with a service before trying to lure me in. Maybe I like paying people to seduce me?

« Show less..