Did anyone ever think that the Annoyed Librarian was ALREADY a paid writer for Library Journal? (lot’s of suspects there).

I would also note that Library Stuff, despite its header, looks far more independent and, to the non-critical eye, might not even be recognizable as an ITI-sponsored blog. AL, on the other hand, is clearly a part of the LJ site now. Feels much different to me. But LS has been part of ITI so long that perhaps I’m the one with non-critical eye.

Greg: I’m not sure what to say, but here’s an attempt…

No, in fact, I don’t believe that paid status adds credibility to AL’s opinions any more than Library Stuff’s sponsored status adds credibility to Cohen’s comments. I don’t believe Library Stuff posts have more credibility than, say, Information Wants to be Free or LibrarianInBlack or Walt at Random or Open Space, none of which happen to be sponsored (as far as I know). Nor do I believe Roy Tennant’s blog or John Berry’s blog have more credibility than any of those I’ve named.

To anybody who’s giving credence to any liblogs, credibility comes from what’s being said and from the author’s track record. Pseudonymous blogs have to rely entirely on their internal record, since they can’t gain credibility from authors’ track records. “Credence” and credibility are tricky things here–unless you’re dealing with factual issues, which AL rarely does. We’re talking gravitas or importance, and there I really don’t believe LJ’s sponsorship does (or at least should) make much difference.

As for the analogy: Yes, if you’re talking about “a random blogger”–and I’m not sure that’s such a good thing.

Would a list of Movers and Shakers generated and posted by, say, Jessamyn West or Meredith Farkas or Steven Bell (all cases where they’d probably state their methodology and, I believe, have solidly established their credibility) have importance similar to one published by LJ? Maybe not–but I’m not entirely clear why it shouldn’t.

The M&S analogy isn’t quite right to me. To me, it’s not that being named a Mover and Shaker might make the designee more important. It’s that a Movers and Shakers list produced by LJ has more weight than a Movers and Shakers list that a random blogger generates and posts on their blog.

LJ is a leading publication in our field. If being on their payroll doesn’t lend some form of credibility to an author, I’m not sure what would. It’s not going to change my perspective, as someone already well-familiar with the AL, but I think a newcomer might indeed give more credence to an LJ-published blogger than your average Blogspot blog. Maybe I’m wrong.

As always, best, and keep on blogging.

Yeah, I sent email to AL noting that they/he/it/she was/were now on what may be the world’s worst blog/comment site. Oh well, if I ever do another Liblog Landscape, it makes it easier: It’s pretty much impossible to get metrics for LJ/SLJ blogs.

On the one hand (third hand?) this is a great move for the Annoyed Librarian as he/she’s now making money off the enterprise. The fourth hand, though, wonders why anyone would want to be published on that nightmare of a publishing platform that LJ calls a website. Sure, people are hitting it now, but I think readership is bound to fall off just because the site is so annoying.