{"id":1929,"date":"2008-01-23T09:09:16","date_gmt":"2008-01-23T16:09:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/2008\/01\/23\/me-v-thee\/"},"modified":"2008-01-23T09:09:16","modified_gmt":"2008-01-23T16:09:16","slug":"me-v-thee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/2008\/01\/23\/me-v-thee\/","title":{"rendered":"Me v Thee"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Is a tension we&#8217;re going to see more of, methinks. A lot more of. <\/p>\n<p>As many of us transition from passively consuming roles to active producers of information, it&#8217;s natural that some of that production &#8211; even most of it &#8211; reflects our respective interests. It&#8217;s just as natural for some &#8211; even most &#8211; of our respective audiences to not share those interests. Hence the tension. <\/p>\n<p>On the one hand, I&#8217;m <a href=\"http:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/2005\/09\/23\/you-are-your-most-important-audience\/\">decidedly in<\/a> the John D. camp (big surprise) that says one should write for oneself first. On the other, I sympathize with an audience that craves relevance. <\/p>\n<p>This tension has been observable within the blogging world for some time now; I&#8217;ve witnessed complaints about many popular bloggers for their indulgence of [pick a hobby], and have certainly fielded my own share regarding the Red Sox content here. Personally, I don&#8217;t particularly care when someone I like to read posts off topic content, either because the efficiencies of an aggregator make the cost of irrelevant content effectively nil, or because I might learn something. As a result, when folks like Bob Sutor or David Churbuck have &#8211; in the past &#8211; contemplated a fork in their blog, I&#8217;ve voted against. I&#8217;m not as big a Dylan fan as Bob, and certainly don&#8217;t enjoy clams as much as David, but that doesn&#8217;t mean I don&#8217;t get anything out of posts on both subjects. <\/p>\n<p>And yet I have in the last few weeks forked my own blog, creating an entirely <a href=\"http:\/\/wickedclevah.com\">separate property<\/a> wherein I feed my Red Sox addiction. As an explanation, I can only offer up that this was as much about me as it was about my audience. With the legitimacy of sports blogs <a href=\"http:\/\/sports.espn.go.com\/espn\/print?id=3206971&amp;type=blogEntry\">on the rise<\/a>, it seemed that to be taken seriously I needed to invest more than the occasional off topic post here. But I&#8217;d be lying if I claimed that audience needs didn&#8217;t come into play; hard as it may be to believe, there were many times last season when I abstained from writing a Red Sox post in this space because I&#8217;d recently done just that. <\/p>\n<p>Or take the link posts automatically generated and posted here each night. One friend mentioned that they were borderline noise, and that he was contemplating creating a feed that filtered them (fortunately, I already <a href=\"http:\/\/pipes.yahoo.com\/pipes\/pipe.run?_id=1qeVRcLt2xGBYz3J1vC6Jw&amp;_render=rss\">have one<\/a> for those of a similar persuasion). But from my standpoint, I generally put effort and thought into every link I make (I certainly don&#8217;t link to everything I read) &#8211; and thus value the generated linkposts, and curiously enough, a portion of the audience <a href=\"http:\/\/jhherren.wordpress.com\/2008\/01\/22\/truncation-zen\/\">enjoys them<\/a> as well. <\/p>\n<p>Far more acute, however, is the tension for me on Twitter. Over there, in a stark contrast to my blog, my primary concern is audience. If my blog is about me, Twitter is about thee (in theory). While I&#8217;m sure the success rate is abysmal, the intent of virtually every entry &#8211; those that aren&#8217;t replies, anyway, and even with some of them &#8211; is to do one of amuse\/entertain\/inform\/point to something interesting. When it comes to Twitter, I try to adhere to a slight modification of the &#8220;if you don&#8217;t have anything nice to say, don&#8217;t say anything rule,&#8221; string substituting the above qualities for &#8220;nice.&#8221; Some of the content, of course, is just dressed up life mundanity (yes, I made that word up), but the effort to render it at least somewhat amusing or informative is there. Usually. <\/p>\n<p>And speaking of replies, they happen to be a perfect example. Subsequent to the first or second @ reply in a longer running Twitter conversation, there&#8217;s always some underlying guilt, driven by an awareness that on some level I&#8217;m inflicting this conversation on a wider audience that may but more likely may not be interested in its contents. Why, I often ask myself, am I not direct messaging? <\/p>\n<p>Many, however, apply the mindset I bring to blogging to Twitter &#8211; write for yourself first, everyone else second. Who am I to blame them? Isn&#8217;t my mantra, after all, that you are your most important audience? And while I might not have any personal affection for the kind of high volume lifestreaming that&#8217;s a typical result of that approach, many of its practitioners are enormously popular, so there&#8217;s little statistical evidence that my personal qualms are common or even widely held. Several folks I know, in fact, have cut their followers because they didn&#8217;t post <i>enough<\/i>, while I&#8217;m the exact reverse: I cull mainly those who post frequently. The cost of following someone who doesn&#8217;t post, after all, being nothing. The cost of following those that post mundane details without the veneer of humor is less obvious, but no less real for that. <\/p>\n<p>As is probably obvious by now, I have no answers for you, and more to the point, it seems self-evident to me that what answers are to be found will vary widely from medium to medium. I do believe, however, that the tension, if not its level, will remain a constant, because we&#8217;re all complicated creatures, and complicated creatures do not always relate to one another. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Is a tension we&#8217;re going to see more of, methinks. A lot more of. As many of us transition from passively consuming roles to active producers of information, it&#8217;s natural that some of that production &#8211; even most of it &#8211; reflects our respective interests. It&#8217;s just as natural for some &#8211; even most &#8211;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[65,93],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1929","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-people","category-trends-observations"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1929","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1929"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1929\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/redmonk.com\/sogrady\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}