Wednesday, June 18, 2008


A couple of ground rules to consider for the blog. I am curious what the other contributors think, as well as any of our readers (though in truth, we probably don't care what you say, and will decide the rules no matter what you think, and we might even make our decision based in part on the opposite of your opinion).

The issue: Cockblogging.

The description: This is Open Bar's term, and while to me it sounds like an online diary focusing on one's penis, it has come to mean posting to the blog immediately or shortly after another contributor has posted, thus demoting (in terms of position and thus prominence on the site) the earlier-in-time post.

My opinion: I am torn on this one. Part of me thinks it is silly to prevent the other contributors from posting whatever and whenever they want, but I too know the pain of putting up an absolutely spectacular post, only to have it demoted within hours, if not minutes, by some nonsense about how "fucking awesome" America is. Should we consider a six-hour rule? A twelve-hour rule? If so, what about the fact that everything Open Bar posts hits the site between 2:00 and 5:00 a.m.? Does that change the analysis. I think I am leaning towards no rule on this. As long as you put something substantive/funny/engaging/interesting on the site, and you are not posting merely to bury another post (which I don't believe anyone has ever done), we should all be encouraged to post without any time restrictions.

The issue: Commenting on Posts

The description: It has been suggested (perhaps "implied" is a better word) that one should not post -- particularly if such post is "cockblogging" another's post (see above) -- without first commenting on the earlier-in-time post.

My opinion: I will readily admit that I really like it when people comment on my posts, particularly when it is one of my co-contributors and they approve of a piece that I spent a lot of time preparing. That said, I cannot see how we can make it a prerequisite to posting that you comment on earlier posts. Sometimes no comment is necessary, sometimes if you can't say anything nice, etc., and sometimes you just don't feel like it. Anyone disagree?

The issue: Labels

The description: Labels are the funny/informative tags applied at the end of the post. I probably should have just called them "tags," and then you would have known what I meant without the need for this description. When you post to the blog, there is a separate field for adding tags, and if you begin to type one that has already been used, Blogger fills it in for you (which is nice).

My opinion: We have enough. In fact, we have 381 of them, compared with 364 posts (including this one). Yes, I counted. There is nothing you can add to this blog that cannot be covered by one of the existing tags. I think we should only use pre-existing labels from now on. Which is to say you can only use labels that Blogger auto-fills for you as you type them in. Sometimes it's a bit of a stretch, but it generally works, and that makes it funnier/more interesting anyway. I am not sure how often we will use tags like "Yorvit is a stupid name," and "poster-board is the new construction paper," but more standard ones like "Mets," "Barack-ing My World," and "Dogs raping children--funny?" will be used all the time. I guess the only problem is that we would have to police ourselves pretty carefully, and it might be a rule that no one wants to/is willing to enforce.


The Notorious LJT said...

no, no and no.

waiting period - i don't think it matters. people who read the blog read it relatively regularly and i don't think a new post really stops anyone from reading the second one unless it's ridiculously long, perhaps but that's really an exception.

commenting first - again, nice to do i guess but not mandatory. maybe polite, but not to be made into a 'rule', per se.

tags - it's dope to build up a category and maybe it's good to try to fit it into one but the real point of the tags if you want to go back later on and read all the posts about, say, ;open bar is a giant fuckhead' or something. it's not a problem at all to use like three or four tags. what if a post doesn't fit into one of the pre-existing tags. i just bought a wok, what if i want to post about that? where does that fit.

good points open bar but, to paraphrase peter venkman, really more of a guideline than a rule.

Open Bar said...

First off, LJT, I didn't write that post.

And to address Side Bar's ideas:

1. I think cockblogging would be fine, but it would be courteous to at least mention the post you just "demoted" at the beginning, informing whoever's reading that immediately below is something worth reading. I certainly don't think there should be some mandatory waiting period. Sometimes a quick run of posts is necessary if we're all aching to let each other know our brilliant opinions on whatever the topic of the day is.

2. Again, I think it's just common courtesy to comment on each other's posts in the first place, but I'd say even moreso if you're about to post something immmediately after someone else just did. (And jeez, Side Bar, for someone who was clearly very offended by a prior act of cockblogging, you certainly don't seem interested in helping to resolve the issue through something as simple as saying "Nice post, jackass.")

3. As you can see, the tags are arranged by frequency of use, so it's pretty fucking easy to find a common tag. I think it can be pretty fucking funny to make the tag part of the joke. And ever so rarely, a tag like "Dogs Raping Kids -- Funny?" finds appropriate usage twice. That's funny, and should be encouraged. And a tag like "Joe Buck is a child predator" should be used more often, so it's good that we've archived it.

All in all, I agree with the "more of a guideline than a rule" thing, but mostly, as the post's title -- Blogiquette -- indicates, it's simply common courtesy. Which, of course, is the purpose of blogs.

The Notorious LJT said...

i know you didn't write that post you son of a motherless goat

Open Bar said...

"good points open bar but, to paraphrase peter venkman, really more of a guideline than a rule."

I hadn't made any points. Did you just mean "side bar" instead?

"Yes it's true. This [LJT] has no dick."

The Notorious LJT said...


i meant side bar.

ChuckJerry said...

The only issue I have is the tags that are literally a complete sentence. Why? Defeats the purpose of tags.

I'm not saying it should be outlawed, but it's counterproductive. Certainly not efficient.

ChuckJerry said...

And another thing. How is it possible we've used the "dogs raping children-funny" tag twice, while the "zeppelin" tag has been used only once?

Open Bar said...

Incidentally, regarding Side Bar's thoughts on the term "cockblogging":