By The Time It Gets to Arizona
The Tucson Citizen gives a little blog intro, mentioning how companies are using & tracking blogs for better input:
Blogs are a quick and easy way to get your message out there and, best of all, you’re in complete control of the message. The vice president of General Motors, Bob Lutz, has even gotten in on the blogging craze (http://fastlane.gmblogs.com).
Many companies also monitor blogs to see what’s being said about them. It’s a fast means of getting a snapshot view of how the general public perceives their business.
Technorati.com and PubSub.com are Web log search engines that help you find the content you’re looking for. Just enter in a few keywords. You can also search for a particular blog by going to http://blogs.icerocket.com/.
“Bear in mind, weblog Conversation comments are comments by people who are no more qualified to make statements on a given subject than that of the original author…”
Seems ironic, at least to me, that your very statement invalidates the value of your post. Profession of fact generally comes from those who are, as a former employer of mine would put it, an SME (Subject Matter Expert). And while I confess (literally, the opposite of profess =) ) that I am NOT a WebLog SME, I cannot see why real experts on a subject can neither, based on your point, provide expert content or comment. If you post an entry on your blog on a topic that I am expert in, am I prohibited from commenting?
In addition, I take umbrage with the idea that topics posted on news sites are provided by experts. So much of what we, the general public, take as expertise is often little more than fluffy filler surrounding few facts spun by personal beliefs. Even reading articles in Scientific American and other, more intellectual journals leave me skeptical.
So, in short, I have to disagree with you. Brian, or the head of GM, or whomever is posting is as likely to be an expert on the topic at hand as any ‘news journalist’ is. If you skim the hype, spin, and fluff off of CNN, it would be on for about an hour each day.
How’s that for vapid?
“Bear in mind, weblog Conversation comments are comments by people who are no more qualified to make statements on a given subject than that of the original author…”
Seems ironic, at least to me, that your very statement invalidates the value of your post. Profession of fact generally comes from those who are, as a former employer of mine would put it, an SME (Subject Matter Expert). And while I confess (literally, the opposite of profess =) ) that I am NOT a WebLog SME, I cannot see why real experts on a subject can neither, based on your point, provide expert content or comment. If you post an entry on your blog on a topic that I am expert in, am I prohibited from commenting?
In addition, I take umbrage with the idea that topics posted on news sites are provided by experts. So much of what we, the general public, take as expertise is often little more than fluffy filler surrounding few facts spun by personal beliefs. Even reading articles in Scientific American and other, more intellectual journals leave me skeptical.
So, in short, I have to disagree with you. Brian, or the head of GM, or whomever is posting is as likely to be an expert on the topic at hand as any ‘news journalist’ is. If you skim the hype, spin, and fluff off of CNN, it would be on for about an hour each day.
How’s that for vapid?