Last week, a new Blawg award came on the scene, the ABA Blawg 100. This wasn’t the first Blawg award or meme to spread across the blawgosphere, but this one did something a bit different. It caused a lot of friction between blawgers.
The difference this time was, I think, twofold. First, because it claimed to endorse the 100 top blawgs, a very large number (though only a fraction of the 3000 or so blawgs in existence), those blawgs that weren’t included felt, well, left out.
The second difference is that it was promoted by the ABA, so rather than have the imprimatur of the blawgosphere alone, it had the American Bar Association seal of approval, like a toothpaste ad for the dental society. While most lawyers, surprisingly to most laypeople, aren’t ABA members, it still smells to the outside world like the big cheese has stamped the left out blawgs with a big red “rejected”. It was not a good feeling.
So what? Well, some very fine people, with some damn fine blawgs, took umbrage. And this caused a rift in the blawgosphere. Truth be told, the friendships and support across the blawgosphere is a whole lot more important than being part of any 100 or getting any award. One more truth: A lot of the blawgs that were left out were as good if not better than the ones included. There. I’ve said it.
The immediate reactions to the announcement of the ABA Blawg 100 was diverse. The named blawgs (including this one) posted that they were in. Some posted more thoughtful things, such as the surprise at who was left out, who else was left out, and even others who were left out. And others still wrote about another silly beauty pageant and bared the unbearable truth of why we have awards to begin with. But blonds still want to win.
Some blawgs decided not to get involved in this intra-blawgospherical competition. Others chose to lobby hard for votes. Still others decided to face directly what it meant without fear of being accused of sour grapes, including the best explanation for what this public voting means:
Indeed. If other things were judged by such polls, Toyota would be recognized as the best carmaker, ground beef as the best cut, Gallo as the best wine, and Thomas Kinkade as the best painter. China would be accepted as the best country, Christianity as the best religion, Windows as the best operating system, and ignorance as the best mental state (coincidentally, George W. Bush would be president).
The blawgosphere exists amongst all the people who spend their time contributing to the knowledge base. Some posts are brilliant. Others less so, but all give the rest of us something to work with and develop a blawgversation. Isn’t it cute how we can work “blawg” into almost any real word? Without each other, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to find us, recognize us as being worthy of a few minutes of their time or continue to exist. Nor would we have a whole lot to write about, since we often borrow (which sounds so much nicer than steal) ideas and links from each other.
Blawging etiquette says that we credit the blawg from which we take things. Most blawgs do. Some do not. Some blawgs are so pretentious that they would only link to other blawgs as “important” as they are. But they aren’t above reading us low life blawgs and borrowing (there’s that word again) our thoughts, ideas and links.
The reason blawging etiquette matters is something that we don’t often mention in our blawgs, our Technorati ranking. This is how we find out what other blawgs link to us, and hence recognize our existence. It’s a way of understanding that there are other people out in the real world that acknowledge our existence, so that we know our peers think that we have something worthwhile to say.
Many blawgs, such as this one, are best described as “niche” blawgs, of interest to a limited audience. Others capture huge audiences and have broader appeal. Still others are part of insular groups that tend to exclude others as they circle the wagons, such as LexBlog and the LawProfs Network.
As for me, there is no award that the blawgosphere has to offer that is more important than the community of the blawgosphere. The friction that has developed around these awards, and surfaced with this ABA Blawg 100, isn’t worth it. More importantly, the awards aren’t real. They don’t mean anything. We don’t win money or fame. There’s no money or fame here to be won. There’s only the support of our fellow blawgers every day that helps us to write the next post or let’s us know when we’re doing well (or poorly).
The honor is to have friends in the blawgosphere, to have a few people read what you write, comment on it, and enjoy the give and take that comes from a community. If awards are going to disrupt that community and make its members feel that their efforts are not worthwhile, then we’re better off without awards. Every time somebody reads one of our posts, we win the secret award for best blawg. That’s good enough for me.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Friction? Really? I don’t see it. Neither those included nor those excluded seem to take the ABA popularity contest seriously.
I think there’s been some hurt feelings around, even if they’re covered up by brave facades. Regardless, the comraderie and support that we give each other is far more important than these silly beauty pageants (who called it that?), and if they end up causing hard feelings, then they aren’t worth it.
Great post, but unclear what you mean about LexBlog being an insular group that tends to exclude others as we circle the wagon.
I’ve tried to be as upportive the law blog community as possible while at the same time serving our clients who chosen LexBlog to empower them through a turnkey professional blog solution,
Kevin,
You are a very highly respected contributing member of the blawgosphere. But does the second sentence of your comment tell you anything? It’s not intended to make anyone defensive, but you’re a marketing guy and you serve your clients.
I am a lawyer guy at heart Scott. Having practiced for 17 years and having had good success on marketing my own firm on the net, I decided I could help more people than one client at a time by helping good lawyers get good clients via the net. Been doing so for 9 years now.
I am also driven by the belief that through thousands of lawyers like you blogging for the greater good that we’re going to improve the image of our profession.
God knows I need to make a buck providing our product and services, which do offer excellent value to lawyers. But there does not have to be a disconnect between helping other lawyers who are blogging, both clients and non-clients, and growing a successful company.
I was just curious why you say LexBlog is part of an insular ‘circle the wagons’ group of blogs. I tell each of our clients that a niche blog with focused audience is key. And it’s certainly not other LexBlog bloggers they are blogging to – it’s to others in the net community who have relevant interests.
Not arguing with you Scott, just trying to learn about LexBlog’s perception in the blogging community. In fact your post is prompting me to ask the question on my blog.
We all write out of need to express ourselves. I say let the marketing take care of itself.
Are there any non-LexBlog blawgs in your blawgroll? You read other people’s blawgs. You engage with other non Lexblog blawgs. But you won’t include them in your blawgroll. I’m not criticizing you choices, and I understand your organic marketing strategy, but excluding blawgs that aren’t from LexBlog is insular.
And I’m begging you not to use your posts here as a marketing tool. This is meant for a real discussion, not a LexBlog promotional opportunity. It’s the one thing within the comments I usually delete, commercial self-promotion. Thanks.
Norm,
There’s stuff going on in the blawgosphere that doesn’t touch us but other lawyers are very involved with. The whole lawyer marketing side is completely different than what we do, and they don’t believe that we (lawyers who write because we want to express our thoughts and enjoy writing) exist. They think blawgs exists solely as a marketing tool, and every post is consciously directed at self-promotion, even if not overtly.
I had the misfortune of listening in on a teleconference by some guy named Nader at Carolyn Elefants invitation. It was horrible. For me. Others thought it was wonderful, and Nader used my comment to Carolyn in a subsequent email to point me out as the only lawyer who didn’t think he was brilliant. This is a quote from his “ezine” email about me:
I find the marketing objective to be unseemly and unnecessary. If offends my old school sensibilities. But others can see it any way they want. I have no plans on becoming a “lawyerpreneur”, whatever that means.
Not sure how can say that what you are doing is not marketing Norm.
To me overt marketing and advertising has always seemed unseemly for lawyers – I went to law school in the ’70’s when the surest way to ID the worst lawyers was to look at those who were advertising and marketing.
But the fact that you are out on the net discussing matters that relate to the law and identifying yourself as a criminal defense lawyer is marketing.
Google your name – I think you are every link on the first page. Not saying your goal was to accomplish this through blogging but blogging and partaking in Internet discussions played a big role in getting you there. And people considering hiring you do Google your name. What they find impacts their hiring decisions.
Blogs are back to the future of lawyer marketing. By getting into discussions and allowing people to get inside our minds, expertise & common sense prevails in the hiring of a lawyer.
I got an email at the end of October from a criminal defense lawyer starting a blog; he wanted to “swap links.”
He seems to have quit blogging; he lasted 11 posts.
If a lawyer doesn’t either a) need to express himself; or b) have someone making the marketing easy for him (including ghost blogging services!), his blog will never last.
Kevin,
I agree in part with your last ¶ — a blog is an excellent place, much better than a yellow pages ad or a static webpage, for the potential customers to find out who the lawyer really is (unless the lawyer is using someone’s ghostwriting services, that is).
But if Norm or Scott is engaged in marketing, I think it’s inadvertent. If we say, “the fact that you blog is marketing,” We might as well say, “the fact that you are trying cases is marketing” or “the fact that you sometimes give free advice is marketing” or “the fact that you say hello to people on trains is marketing.” Any of it might affect (I’ve always thought of “to impact” as a verb invented by people who couldn’t remember the difference between affect and effect) someone’s hiring decision.
But they try cases because the cases need trying, they give free advice because people need it, they say hello to the folks on the train because they’re friendly, and they blog because they have something to say.
Agreed Mark, it is inadvertent marketing.
The best way I got my work as a trial lawyer was through my work and everyday activities. People saw me in court, friends of clients heard of what we may have down, I answered questions via phone and latter on the net, I got involved in local causes etc. I look at blogging as that same form of activity.
And I’m the first to hit the delete button when I get one of those emails asking me to link to their blog.
And thanks for the forum to discuss this Scott.
Fair enough about most of the blogs in my blogroll being clients Scott. There are a fair number that are not clients as well.
I’m working on some things now so as to showcase all law blogs and posts – clients and non clients. May then be looked at self promotion but my intent will be to promote all legal blogs for the benefit of all.
Sorry if I appear to be monopolizing some of the discussion on this post. You and others have just raised some excellent points.
K:
I have a web page that is targeted toward the sorts of clients I like. My blogging activity, however, is unlinked to that. In fact, while it may have attracted clients, I am aware that it has cost me cases. Clients are sometimes confused about what gets written. They think it is about them. Hence, at Crime and Federalism, Mike and I started something called the “sociopathy project,” about the dark side of the law. I had quite a few clients think I was writing about them.
I think there is a difference between speaking your mind, regardless of where the chips fall, and seeking to gather chips.
N
I must say, Scott, one must give this a lot more thought than I have in order to take umbrage. It’s a blog poll, which means by definition it’s unscientific and fundamentally meaningless. It’s just for fun, for those who’re interested, and those who’re not don’t need to click there.
On self promotion, the world we live in seldom rewards humility, sad to say – maybe it’s because of my background in electoral politics, but I see nothing wrong with asking people for their vote. As I wrote on a similar topic on”>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2007/11/30/best-of-lists-the-bearish-truth-bared/#comments”>on f/k/a, asking readers to vote for you “engages core readers and gives them a way to participate in promoting the blog. That strengthens the blog’s overall communal relationships, since at core blogs are a community of writers and readers.” Many bloggers, myself included, under-emphasize promotion, but it’s important given blogs’ participatory nature.
As for “hurt feelings,” the blogosphere is a rough and tumble place, not for the weak of heart as writing venues go. If one’s feelings are easily hurt, my advice is to get a paper diary with a lock and key. I regularly receive blasts in the comments that far outdistance any offense I might take at being left off of this or that list.
Blogrolling and linking to content is another matter. I don’t update my own blogroll as often as I should, not because I don’t value other bloggers, but because if I’m going to spend time on the blog, I’d rather write than fiddle with html. But I link to any source of whatever “authority,” including not infrequently to blogs with 0s or 1s. Linking out builds traffic both ways and no thoughtful, self-interested blogger would (or should) only link to blogs their “size” or bigger.
Which brings me to my final point: Technorati’s import is a myth. Blogs are about writers and readers. If you’re writing, your blog is as important to you whether it’s got an authority of 3 or 3,000. There is no difference in the day to day activities of high and low-authority bloggers; one sits in front of a computer and writes. I don’t concern myself that fewer people read or link to my blog than Talk Left or Burnt Orange Report. If I think someone needs to read something I wrote, I take nothing to chance and email it to them. As Mark Bennett’s anecdote implies, if you regularly produce good content, and engage in at least a moderate amount of self-promotion, your “authority” will take care of itself over time. best,
Good morning, Scott. Isn’t it the middle of the night in Texas?
This has proven to be a pretty interesting discussion. It’s touched a nerve with a lot of blawgs, and has produced an awful lot of denial. There have been a lot of comments to the various Beauty Pageants are Silly posts, not to mention a lot of Beaty Pageants are Silly posts, meaning that these Beauty Pageants mean something to a lot of people. Otherwise, they would just ignore them and move on to more substantive issues, blawgers time being so short and all.
What’s funny is that some take the position, such as Bennett, that contests are just silly, and no one takes them seriously and they are unworthy of causing any hard feelings around the blawgosphere. But then there are others, like you, who see them as a way to “engages core readers and gives them a way to participate in promoting the blog.” The message is that different blawgers view these contests differently, and efforts to categorize them for everyone else is foolish. Each blawger will view the contests, and his inclusion, in his own way. Some feel hurt. Some feel proud. Some are in denial. Some couldn’t care less.
The same is true of how we treat links, blogrolls, etc. If I read a blog, I include it on my blogroll, even if they don’t include mine. It takes about 3 second to do so, and I can spare them that much time since they’ve given me their time to write. I include blogs that take a contrary perspective as well as sympatico blawgs. If I read them, they deserve a place. And I don’t check their Technorati ranking to decide, but I do check mine for two reasons. I want to know who’s linking to me and what they have to say, and I want to know if anybody is reading what I’m writing. That’s my little bit of vanity. I would write regardless, but it’s nice to know somebody is reading.
And finally, this post was about people’s feelings being hurt by being left out of these Beauty Pageants. I disagree with you that Beauty Pageants should continue and they should just “get a paper diary with a lock and key” and suck it up. Frankly, that’s a little harsh. Given the choice, I much prefer to strong blawging community over being named to the Blawg 100, and I chose my friends over an award. But that’s just me.
As the comments here show, there is (as was argued in the original post) a wide division of thought on the subject. And every commenter (not to mention Giacalone who voices his views on his own) is certain he knows what’s best. That’s the way of the blawgosphere.
I resent each and every one of you that got nominated.
Thank you, Diogenes. You can get back at ’em with the Giddy Award.
Not an honest man in sight, eh?
They’re not the Giddys. They’re the Rodneys. Coming December 17th. To a Blog near you. Special guest stars Nicole Kidman and Julianne Moore. Jane Seymour presides.
Or something.
SHG, you write:
“I disagree with you that Beauty Pageants should continue and they should just “get a paper diary with a lock and key” and suck it up. Frankly, that’s a little harsh.”
If you think that’s harsh go read the comments on Grits sometime – the level of offensive stuff tossed my way by cops, prosecutors and petty bourgeois do-gooders has frequently been off the charts, up to and including a couple of overt threats of violence in the three years I’ve been doing it.
People who choose to participate in public debates in the blogosphere risk many judgments being made about their work, not just that they might not be worthy of inclusion in some list, but more frequently harsh, personal attacks criticizing their profession, friends, values, beliefs. If you’re not prepared for that, journal writing is always an option – if the prose is worthy, the rest of us can all enjoy it posthumously. 😉 best,
We might be talking about different things. I’m addressing hurt feelings about being left out of beauty Pageants, not attacks by people who oppose our views. Personal threats are another matter altogether. When I post, I expect someone to challenge my ideas, and people often do. That’s absolutely fair.
But Beauty Pageants are not the same as the marketplace of ideas. I agree with you completely that if you want to put your thoughts out there for everyone to read, then you have to be prepared to be criticized by people who disagree. No issue at all. But Beauty Pageants do nothing to enhance the discourse. They may bring some new readers to your blawg, and I see a significant distinction between promoting readership versus promoting myself as a lawyer (Kevin may disagree with this, but that’s okay too). But does winning a contest make my substance any better? Nope. My substance either stands or falls on its own, and if a bunch of new folks stop by because of the ABA Blawg 100, read my posts and decide that I am the dimmest bulb in the blawgosphere, then they’re gone and no contest will change their views of Simple Justice.
Hey, David Giacalone makes fun of me all the time. That’s fine with me, because he dresses funny and posts Haikus, the poetry equivalent of puns. (Only kidding David). I’m just glad to give him someone to make fun of. And as for Kevin O’Keefe, I’m adding him to my blogroll, not because I’m a fan of lawyer marketing but because I’m going to continue to check out his blog and he should have a place here. I wonder if Kevin will add Simple Justice to his?
“Petty bourgeois do-gooders?” Doesn’t that describe us as well?
My point was that writers who are overly concerned about hurt feelings should find another medium. Failure to include someone on a list will be the least of judgments that will be made about them in the blogosphere!
Also I do find discursive value in the process of such list making, mostly that I learn about blogs that I’ve not read before, and I think lots of folks do, too. Folks also learn of new blogs when others debate who SHOULD have been on the list. Whether they’re the “best” is a subjective distinction. (Hell, I probably shouldn’t have even been on the list since I’m not a lawyer!)
Finally, on blogrolling, FWIW, my own standards are highly subjective, but personally I try not to lard the blogroll with titles that I seldom read. TX political blogs make it on the roll more quickly and stay on longer despite infrequent posting. For others, if I haven’t found anything there that interests me in a while, I’ll discard the link. I know a lot of folks take a de-linking personally, but to me the blogosphere is about identifying niches of interest, and there are plenty of folks who I respect who aren’t interested in the same things I am.
Finally, as for “petty bourgeois do-gooders,” where you ask, “Doesn’t that describe us as well?”, I’d reply, “Exactly – those people are assholes.” 🙂 best,
ABA Journal “Blawg 100” controversy
The selection of sites, as well as the whole traffic-building beauty-contest genre that it may be seen as typifying, has stirred up a considerable volume of discussion: see Giacalone, Elefant, the unaccountably omitted Turkewitz, and Greenfield, as well as links…
Hey Sailor, Wanna Date?
Ah, the number of times I heard a woman of the evening ask this question while walking along East 23rd Street on a balmy spring evening back when I was in law school.
Do Real Lawyers Use LexMonitor?
Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs
Do Real Lawyers Use LexMonitor?
Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs
Do Real Lawyers Use LexMonitor?
Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs
Do Real Lawyers Use LexMonitor?
Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs
Do Real Lawyers Use LexMonitor?
Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs
Do Real Lawyers Use LexMonitor?
Kevin O’Keefe of Real Lawyers Have Blogs