SCOTUSBlog: The Business, Confirmed (Update)

After Tom Goldstein announced the “new, improved,” and coincidentally, “exclusively sponsored,” SCOTUSBlog, I pondered whether this would change it, make it more, oh, business-like.  It didn’t take long to get an answer.

From yesterday’s email:


Hi Scott,


I’m writing to you from SCOTUSblog in hopes that you may consider helping us out;  we have just launched a new “SCOTUSblog Community” feature on the blog that will be home to discussion of various Court-related and law-related topics. Tomorrow’s featured topic is “legal blogging.”  Discussion threads will cover everything from the role of legal blogs generally (i.e. the relationship between legal blogs and the academy, business etc.) to what legal blogs people like the best, to  SCOTUSblog specific topics (what features do you like/dislike about the new redesign).


My guess is that you’ve meditated on the general topic a bit, so I was wondering if you might like to give us a “seed comment” we can use to get the discussion going tomorrow.  You can either e-mail me a comment of 2 sentences to 2 paragraphs that I’ll post under your name, or, better yet, if you want to participate directly Tom’s “Guide” to the community is here: http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=128656&preview=true


Please let me know if you have any questions and thanks for your consideration,


Kali
Manager | SCOTUSblog


SCOTUSBlog has a manager?  Like a rock band?  Now I’m always happy to add my voice to a worthy cause, and what cause could be worthier than to be a “seed comment” to grow a new community.  After all, there’s nothing more organic than using a seed to grow a community, even if you have to ask for it, right?  But then, why did Kali ask me?





Hi Kali,





When I learned of Tom’s new biz, I wrote about it (Simple Justice: SCOTUSBlog: The Business) expressing my thoughts about the changes.  Despite more than 50,000 page views, I was disappointed that I didn’t hear anything from Tom about the post.





As for a seed comment in your community, I’m not quite clear what you’re asking for. If you can give me some more info, or an example of what you’re seeking, it would be helpful.





Scott


Yeah, a bit of an obtuse message, I suppose, but anybody who can discern meaning from a Supreme Court decision ought to be able to figure it out.




Hi Scott,


I can’t speak to the first point, I’m sorry.


But I’m happy to help with the second point, here are the threads we are planning:


>>In this thread, discuss the role of SCOTUSblog, and whether it succeeds or fails in fulfilling that role.


>>In this thread, discuss your favorite and least favorite features of SCOTUSblog, including your reactions to the recent redesign of the site.


>>In this thread, address the Community and the role of commenters, including how you hope to see this feature develop.


>>In this thread, discuss the relationship between legal blogs and the legal academy, including the extent to which blogs can and should be treated as serious scholarship.


>>In this thread, discuss your favorite legal blogs and why you value them, and please give special attention to sites that you think are often overlooked.


Let me know if you have other suggestions.


Thank you!


-Kali


Okay, so it was clearly too subtle.  I keep telling the lawprofs that I try to be subtle, but no one gets it.  They tell me I need to communicate with smarter people (like them). Sigh.



I think you kind of missed the point of my email, Kali.  Show it to Tom. Maybe he’ll get it.

The direct approach, a whole new concept.


My guess is that he was just busy.

Oh my, Kali.  You didn’t just write that.  Yes. Yes, you did.


I’m sure he was.  And the rest of us sit around eating bon bons.

And with that, I’m constrained to conclude that SCOTUSBlog is, indeed, a business.  Very much a business.  And therefore, very much not a blawg.  Sorry if I disturbed you, Tom, but I’m afraid that I’m unworthy of seeding your community with my comment.

Update:  I just took a look at who took Kali up her offer to provide “seed comments” for the greater good of someone else’s for-profit business.  An interesting assortment, indeed.  Reminds of those who couldn’t bear to miss the opening of a new art gallery, lest they be considered Philistines.

More importantly, it looks like most of the commenters are very official and serious, trying to prove themselves worthy of being seed comments on such a prestigious and important blog.  It was a monumental bore.  Unless these new sapplings loosen up and start writing something that even remotely sounds human, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to spend time in Tom’s carefully manicured industrial park.

But it’s kind of funny to see who’s blowing smoke up Goldstein’s butt, as if he’ll throw them a kind word or a Supreme Court oral argument.  Heh.

5 thoughts on “SCOTUSBlog: The Business, Confirmed (Update)

  1. Alex Bunin

    Good thing you did not fall for that. They would have billed you for taking up space with your seed.

Comments are closed.