10 January 2002
Submitted by eve on Thu, 01/10/2002 - 1:46am. News
So, it's time for the Bloggies again. No, not the Webbies, the internet-wide award ceremony I worked at over the summer. The bloggies are just for weblogs, and a much smaller affair. No awards show, no glossy magazine and flashy after party, just people voting online for sites that they like, and the winners posted on a web page.
The definition of weblog has always been fuzzy -- some say it's a site that logs other sites on the web with copious links, others say it's a site that logs the life of the person running it. I'm sure there's a trillion other definitions, but I've come to accept that In Passing fits into the defintion of "weblog." Somewhere.
There is a lot of talent in the weblog community, and it would be an honor if In Passing was nominated alongside all those other sites I respect.
That said, yeah, I'm asking you guys to vote for me. Don't worry, I do feel plenty sheepish and silly about it, but not so sheepish and silly that I'm not willing to ask. If you enjoy In Passing and think the site and the community of folks who visit it deserve a little recognition, you can nominate it for a Bloggie award here. I think "Best Topical Weblog" is probably the category where In Passing fits best.

And as long as I'm making reccomendations, I'd like to throw out a few other sites I admire.

Best non-weblog content: Crushing Krisis and the weekly song trios there.
Best programming of a weblog: Fury and Linkstew.
Best American weblog: Wockerjabby.
Best Canadian weblog: Succaland.

There are many other sites I enjoy that deserve recognition, but for now I'm going to bed. I'm guessing the clever readers of this site will use the comments for this post to suggest other websites worthy of nominations. Happy voting, and thanks.
Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Thu, 01/17/2002 - 6:23pm.
Archived comment by Matt:
Good point, slugbuggy. This site is more like communist (purposely small "c") art. Sure, there's a Committee overseeing things, but basically everyone has an equal voice in the creation of the content.

Karl might soil his Underoos at the creation of such a thing, but then again, maybe it's just what he wanted, though in a form no one could've imagined 20 years ago.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Wed, 01/16/2002 - 4:49pm.
Archived comment by slugbuggy:
Ceci n'est pas un weblog. I mean, it is, but it isn't. It's a whole other something else altogether, I think, maybe. Or not. It's more a gallery of found objects that, abstracted out of their original contexts, take on a different, surreal logic. Like... a Magritte or Duchamp's readymades.Then the rest of us come along and make of it what we will.

Anyway, like the menu says it's funny, bizarre, ironic, tragic, wise, and beautiful all at once.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Mon, 01/14/2002 - 9:33pm.
Archived comment by denise:
what i find ironic is that one of the creators of blogger can't be a finalist because her site isn't a true weblog under nikolai's definition. megnut content has been getting more and more personal, with links just illustrating points she's trying to make. would i still consider it a blog? hell yes.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Mon, 01/14/2002 - 1:29pm.
Archived comment by Davezilla:
We of course, are running the Anti-Bloggies again this
year starting February 1. We have decided to increase
the scope of what a weblog constitutes to include sites
that have webpages, sites that have pictures and
spinning bits, sites that take too long to load with lots
of popunders and cheese sandwiches (but not the
drippy kinds with bad content).

http://www.davezilla.com/anti-bloggie/
Posted by Anne Onymous on Mon, 01/14/2002 - 12:41pm.
Archived comment by Eve:
Wow.
At this point, I don't even mind that In Passing isn't eligible for a Bloggie, it's been really cool -- heck, it's been amazing -- to read all of your reasons why this site is special.
Thanks, everybody. :-)
As for the Bloggies, I agree that it's necessary that nominees fit the category of the award. For example, I think Blogger and Livejournal are great tools for people who have personal web sites. I also think that Fray.com is a wonderful web site of personal stories from thousands of people. But none of them are personal sites by my definition, and yet all of them were nominated for Webby Awards in that category. Nikolai has his rules and his reasons for his definition of a weblog and while I may not agree entirely, I'll respect them.
So thank you very much to everyone who voted for me, but there's no need to vote for In Passing anymore. Actually, there's no need to vote for any sites now, since voting is through, but I hope at least a few of the sites I endorsed got nominated, because I find each of them to be extraordinarily cool in its own category.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Mon, 01/14/2002 - 10:06am.
Archived comment by Mike:
Ooh! Ooh! I nominate the Bloggies! Have you heard of 'em? ;^)

Feh, I just wrote this long rambly post and deleted it. Lucky you.

Summary: I'm leaning towards identifying this site as a blog-- but a blog so specialized and abstract that I can understand how some people would not classify it as such.
Maybe if there were more posts like these, with direct commentary and more links in the initial posts, In Passing's-- er-- blogginess would be more obvious.

Anyway, it seems more like a blog than anything else.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Mon, 01/14/2002 - 8:57am.
Archived comment by David.:
I am now accepting nominations for the Passies, an award for websites with no criterion restrictions whatsoever. Awards will be determined by a vote, which is restricted to regular readers of InPassing.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Mon, 01/14/2002 - 7:46am.
Archived comment by Jon:
Accumulating all the various suggestions on weblog definitions(thanks to peter, Kevin, and Nikolai), and incorporating my own fuzzy logic, I must conclude that IP is not weblog-eligible.

Which means, of course, that we need to find some award which fits Eve's site(punishment that fits the crime), so that IP can get its recognition. Can I hear a "What, What"?
Posted by Anne Onymous on Mon, 01/14/2002 - 6:45am.
Archived comment by jcharles:
I think the word "web" means something else in Nikolai's definition. He's not awarding logs that appear on the web and use its linking capabilities. He's awarding logs that actually log the web. They don't have to have any personal information. They're regularly updated collections of interesting websites.

Under this definition, I'd have to agree that InPassing doesn't fit.

Personally, I rarely find this kind of website engaging. Metafilter is an exception, but even there I'm more interested in the human discussion that goes on than in the web links.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 11:17pm.
Archived comment by Bryan:
When you get down to it, there ain't a whole lot of difference between a log and a journal. Both record events that happen in life. The difference between a log and a LOG lies in one area: CONTENT.

Regarding logs, I'm convinced that there ain't much distinction between, say, a trucker's log recording time and mileage hauled and a log of web sites that one encounters daily. Journals are merely logs that go into more detail about a person's life.

Inpassing is a LOG; It's a record of antedotes that invoke a response from the reader.

Obviously, I'm biased, but I think sites such as InPassing or UMR's blog have the right mix of "links" and "content."

There's is the true stuff of logs.

Links do not make up a "real" log. Content does. I would rather see personal stuff/analysis of life's events than a bunch of links that may or may not be relevent.

I believe that the proper definition of a "weblog" is the following: A record of personal events, updated regularly, and on a website.


The point I'm trying to make(and not well) is that a real weblog would have content and links. InPassing qualifies under that standard
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 9:51pm.
Archived comment by Nikolai:
Peter: "Are you saying some topics *can't* be weblogged?"

Well, there's no reason why they "can't," but I believe that "weblog" has become too encompassing a word. The thing that makes "weblogs" different from other kinds of "*logs" IMO is that they link to other sites.

Peter: "i'm sure you could find a few volunteers from the mass-mailing list you sent out to earlier this year if you actually need the help."

I did have volunteers for this year, but the process isn't streamlined enough. If four people are going through the nominations, there's no easy way to say "X is an eligible weblog; don't bother checking again" or "x@x sent a ballot; make sure he didn't send more than one."

Kevin: "The fact that these links are to the real world,
not the internet, should be cherished as
something that makes it unique enough to
win a bloggie, not different enough to be
excluded from the competition."

Yes, it's unique, but I'm trying to just focus on things that link. Some people would say that In Passing is a journal, others would say it's a weblog, I say it's neither. I'm limiting the definition on purpose because, among other things that never made it to the finals, last year, The 5K won a Bloggie because of my looser definition, and I think everyone would agree that it's not a weblog.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 8:40pm.
Archived comment by Mike:
Now, now. No need for a boycott.

Nikolai, I get the feeling Eve's site would get similarly rejected if she tried for a Diarist award. It's like she's stuck in a gray area in terms of description. Part of the burden of being avant-garde, I guess. :^)

It would be nice if someone nailed down a decent definition of the term "weblog," though. It seems kinda vague.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 7:53pm.
Archived comment by NinjaRap:
Peter and Kevin are totally right. InPassing qualifies if for no other reason than the fact that Eve is always linking to whatever she can.

If it doesn't qualify however, well, then I see no reason for any of us to care about the Bloggies anymore. It's obvious that the definition of "weblog" used is so ludicrously narrow that they're not even worth voting for, let alone actually giving a rat's ass who wins. Feh.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 6:55pm.
Archived comment by umrguy:
Amen, Brother Kevin!
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 6:33pm.
Archived comment by Kevin Fox:
Nikolai,

The problem is that inpassing isn't a diary
either. It's not a journal. It's not a 'personal
blog'.

In its truest sense, inpassing.org is an
aggregation of *human links*. It provides links
to the real-world in the markup language we
have for speech, that is to say, transcription.

The fact that these links are to the real world,
not the internet, should be cherished as
something that makes it unique enough to
win a bloggie, not different enough to be
excluded from the competition.

My gut feeling is that the more you narrow the
criteria for what can be nominated for a
bloggie, the more you pre-specify the
winnders, and exclude the turly novel and
noteworthy blogs.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 2:26pm.
Archived comment by peter:
I don't know that i necessarily buy that bit about linking... i feel as though anytime Eve can float us a link involving one of her entries she does, which makes her indeed a topical weblog. How could someone with Eve's topic link enough to fit your definition satisfactorily? Could they? Are you saying some topics *can't* be weblogged?

I think it is be wise to exclude journalers with the odd link here and there, but some excellent "webloggers" can go a whole week posting only a small handful of links. I realize you're trying to produce a purer strain of nominees for the awards, but limiting them in such a fashion is ultimately going to detract from the quality of the winners. I know i could probably name 5 or 10 people who are probably going to see nominations as people who don't link *enough* to be considered a weblogger -- although you distinguish that linking should be a primary objective, drawing the line isn't so black & white.

As for your comment about being the only one to sort through entries, i'm sure you could find a few volunteers from the mass-mailing list you sent out to earlier this year if you actually need the help. If the quality of the awards is meant to be improved by tightening the definitions, it can surely be improved as well by increasing the staff.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sun, 01/13/2002 - 9:59am.
Archived comment by Mike:
Aw!
Posted by Anne Onymous on Sat, 01/12/2002 - 11:55pm.
Archived comment by Nikolai:
Sorry, but, even though I'm a regular reader of In Passing, it's not eligible for a Bloggie. I limited the awards to just things that link because a) I've always believed that what made a "weblog" a "weblog" was links, b) there are already the Diarist awards for journals, and c) opening the contest up to anything that had dated entries would result in huge amounts of votes for huge amounts of sites. I'm still the only one reviewing these ballots, y'know.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Fri, 01/11/2002 - 10:57pm.
Archived comment by NinjaRap:
Shameless plug -- I contribute to a group weblog that's centered around discussion of The X-Files (yes, we're geeks). It's called "The Truth Is A Bitch," and long before I contributed to it at all, I found it very fun to just read. So, I'm nominating it for some stuff, and telling you all that it exists. And hey, it has a links page! Thankfully, considering that their definition DOES kind of suck.

Don't worry, I'm also nominating InPassing in the same categories. :) And WilWheaton.net!
Posted by Anne Onymous on Fri, 01/11/2002 - 9:14am.
Archived comment by umrguy:
I too agree with Kevin. And my own blog tends to run more towards a journal, with very few links, than that definition.

&lt shameless plug &gt

HOWEVER, I'd simply love it if people would read it more often. I've got a few regular readers here, and I'd love to see more people come back and read it consistently. To check it out, just follow the namelink.

&lt //shameless plug &gt
Posted by Anne Onymous on Fri, 01/11/2002 - 8:09am.
Archived comment by Becca:
I'm not too fond of their definition either. But whaddya gonna do?

Anyway I nominated In Passing. Hope you win, Eve!

Also, please nominate Not My Desk at www.notmydesk.com. If you've never been to this site, I encourage you to check it out. Chris, the keeper of this log, is extremely funny and definately deserves to win an award. Even if you don't nominate this site, go and check it out anyway.
Posted by Anne Onymous on Thu, 01/10/2002 - 8:09pm.
Archived comment by rabi:
wow. thanks!
Posted by Anne Onymous on Thu, 01/10/2002 - 4:35pm.
Archived comment by Kevin Fox:
Wow I disagree with that definition. The
problem is that of course most weblogs are
more than just link propogators, they have a
reflection of the person who writes them, or
else what's the point? Personally, I think
there's a much finer line between the person
who runs an all-personal weblog, and the one
who mixes personal and links, and the one
who has a personal+links weblog and one
that's *just* links. I think the 'just links' site
would be the most out of place, and so it
doesn't seem right to exclude those that are
'just personal'. But that's just me. Seems by
those stringent rules, In Passing isn't any sort
of weblog, since it rarely links to the outside
world, and when it does, it's not fulfilling its
mission.

The 'collection of frequently-updated links'
definition denys that weblogs are about
content. And I'm not content with that...
Posted by Anne Onymous on Thu, 01/10/2002 - 8:10am.
Archived comment by Peter:
Did i mention how much you rock?

As for the definition of a WebLog, the Bloggies have defined it as a dated and updated internet site that at least partly makes a practice of linking to other websites. Or, in their words:

"For this contest, a "weblog" is a page with dated entries that has a purpose (in whole or in part) of linking to other sites. For instance, sites that are intended to be just personal journals or site news pages are not eligible."
Posted by Anne Onymous on Thu, 01/10/2002 - 5:35am.
Archived comment by Arlene:
What is this web you speak of?

{aieee, the flaming arrows!}
Posted by Anne Onymous on Thu, 01/10/2002 - 2:18am.
Archived comment by Sephiroth:
I have ADD so I kind of need a very brief difinition of a weblog! Not only for me but anyone else who can't read long articles...
Control panel
Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.