“Blog posts are written, not defecated.” That’s the best line in this list of instructions for “good blogs.” I think many bibliobloggers struggle with #1, while we probably excel at number two. I would add to the list: being willing to admit that your own blog may not meet all the criteria for a good blog! Plank-in-your-own-eye sort of thing. Personally, I think I could get better with most of the items on the list (Jim agrees), but trying to post more often and more consistently might help (I would place this under #8).
What do you think are the best “good blogs” among bibliobloggers? I’m not talking about the most academic, the most informative, or the most brilliant, but the ones that line up with as many of the points on this list as possible. Of the cuff here, and based simply on my own personal preferences, I would say Doug Chaplin, James McGrath, Nick Norelli, John Anderson, and a few others. I think there are many who would probably line up really well with the list if they posted more often.
HT: Chris Brady and Jim West.
Wow – thank you Pat for listing me like this. Now I must go and read the criteria to find out what one person at least thinks I’m doing right
I’m honored to be listed as well, thanks!. I definitely embody #2 with my free book obsession.
Thanks for the mention, Pat. I am honored to be listed, and I am glad you find my blog to be worthwhile . . . . er, “good.”
I too am honored! I think my blogging is a bit like my jokes: if you keep making them, you’re bound to come up with a good one once in a while, and people tend to completely forget the large number of ones that flopped – fortunately!
You are most welcome. Intriguingly, I have found myself much more drawn to your postings at your new blog home. Perhaps it’s because your old blog only had little previews in the feed and I very rarely click “read more” on those things.