In a comment on a posting at FRL, Lorcan Dempsey says:
“Yes, I think that it would be sad if somebody were to start ‘ranking’ blogs, however it is done, in our space.”
Well…it depends what you mean by ranking. As hinted at in an earlier post, I’ve carried out a casual investigation that could be considered doing exactly that.
Not with any intention of setting forth a “A-list library bloggers” list or anything like that, but as a look at the more wide-reaching portions of, sigh, the “biblioblogosphere.” (I dislike neologisms, but this one’s just too handy not to use.)
The resulting Perspective will appear in the forthcoming Cites & Insights 5:10, September 2005, which will be published later today (barring unexpected problems!). (Link-happy folks might actually find a live link there, but I define “published” as “PDF uploaded, index, contents, and old-issue pages modified, HTML portions uploaded, and issue announced on C&I Alerts, W.a.R., and the Topica mailing list.” None of that except the first has been done; I’m now in the habit of uploading the PDF a day early, when feasible, to be sure it downloads and prints properly from some other computer.) Actually, it’s half the issue–and that doesn’t include two spreadsheets.
This isn’t a study of the 60 “best” library-related weblogs. It isn’t even a study of the 60 most widely read library-related weblogs. It’s a study of 60 library-related weblogs, written by one to four people (not big group affairs) as personal effort (not *library* or *course* weblogs), listed in one of three major directories of library-related weblogs, that appear to have fairly broad reach.
As I say in the article, it’s “a top 50 library-people blogs, not the top 50″–and, of course, 60 isn’t necessarily identical to 50. I don’t attach integer numbers to the individual blog descriptions; there’s an obvious #1 library-person weblog in terms of overall reach (by any measure I can think of), but beyond that, I’m only willing to group in three general categories. None of which is by any means certain or foolproof: For example, I used Google’s “link:” results as one of several measures, and I’m now convinced that’s a bad idea.
You may find the article interesting. You may find it infuriating. I hope it points you to one or two interesting blogs you haven’t heard of. As always, comments and suggestions welcome, here or via email to waltcrawford at gmail or wcc at rlg.org, with the note that comments here may be deleted or “moderated to delete” if they’re inappropriate. Disagreeing with me is never inappropriate.
[Trivia: Today should see a rare triple posting...I almost never do three posts a day. I wonder whether admin access to WordPress weblogs will ever become reasonably fast?]