Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Overblogging etc

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overblogging etc
Date: 2008-01-14 21:07:42
Message-ID: 478BCF1E.2070505@hagander.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 15:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Magus Ha gander wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>>>>> I suggest we allow 1 blog per week per person and that the blogs must be
>>>>>>> about something constructive, not just a one liner about getting out of
>>>>>>> the bath or other trivial subjects. Since we have only a few blog slots
>>>>>>> it's a shame when long useful blogs are replaced by trivial ones.
>>>>>> I strongly object to this. We should encourage *more* blogging, not less.
>>>>> I agree with more blogging, but I think we must avoid clogging.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not seen anyone write an interesting blog that comes out almost
>>>>> daily, so I don't think once per week is restrictive on the types of
>>>>> content we really want to see. It can be a guideline.
>>>> The reason I have so many blog entries is that I just started a Postgres
>>>> blog and had some pent-up items to post about.
>>>>
>>>> As far as long entries, you wil not see them from me.  I am usually
>>>> brief, even in email.  And I probably will be pretty frequent.
>>> There's a difference between brief and one-liners. Brief is fine by me. 
>>> To look at your blog as an example, the latest two posts are absolute 
>>> fine - while brief. It's the first two one-liners that seem a bit 
>>> unnecessary for syndication.
>> I assume Planet PostgreSQL is for blogging, not for writing technical
>> articles.  If every blog posting is going to go through such scrutiny it
>> isn't worth it for me to be on Planet PostgreSQL.  Feel free to remove
>> me.
>>
>> The bottom line is that every Planet PostgreSQL blog items takes the
>> same space on the Postgres web site as an event or training course. 
>> This significantly raises the bar on what you want to have on Planet
>> PostgreSQL.  Obviously a significant number of people are willing to
>> write article-length postings to reach that bar;  I am not.
> 
> If you had written as much on your blog as you had here, nobody would
> have said a thing. Nobody has asked for an article, but writing multiple
> one line blogs in succession is clearly different. That wouldn't be
> acceptable from Mr.Marketing of Company XYZ, so must include you also.

Can't we just say that it's noted, and ask Bruce to try to stay away 
from the one-liners in his PostgreSQL bog, and just *give it a rest*. 
*please*?


> Editorial guidelines apply in all other cases, including for example
> long debates about whether words have "s" or "z" in them. If anybody
> posted that they were going to refuse to write docs ever again as a
> result, they would be considered unreasonable.

Yes, they would be considered unreasonable. But I for one would 
certainly not question them blogging about it if that's the decision 
they made.


//Magnus

In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Devrim GÜNDÜZDate: 2008-01-14 21:20:40
Subject: Re: Overblogging etc
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-01-14 21:05:11
Subject: Re: Overblogging etc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group