Noteworthy?

Although I’ve owned the ionfish.co.uk domain since 2002, it was only a year ago today that I posted the first entry on this weblog. Since then, I’ve written 104 entries, some of them better than others.

There’s a lot of dross on this site, resulting from lazy posting habits and spates of guiltiness at not writing something, and I’d like to try to highlight some of the better entries from the past, to give readers an idea of some worthwhile destinations.

So, dear readers, I ask you: is this a good idea? And if so, how should I implement it—retrospectively, after some time has passed, or as I write them? Under the first system I’d probably go through the archives every few months and add those entries I considered deserving to the list; under the second, I’d just do it as I wrote them.

Then, of course, there’s the question of which entries should be considered noteworthy in the first place. A balance needs to be struck between too little and too much, making the most of the good while not devaluing the label by applying it too widely. What are the criteria? Profundity, lots of comments, being well-written? Interesting subject matter, permanence? How many kittens were involved?

Answers, as always, on a postcard—or in the comments section—are gratefully received. Getting comments is probably why I keep blogging, so if you want me to carry on, let me know what you think.

9 responses

By highlighting particular writings on this site you are at once encouraging people to read them and voicing an opinion as to which writings are representative of this site as a whole, or what you wish it to be.

I would recommend highlighting compositions that are, in your mind, indicative of what it is you are attempting to achieve here at Ionfish. For example, if you wish for Ionfish to simply be a collection of random musings and thoughts, choose those. If you wish Ionfish to be a place for contemplation and structure, choose those. The truth, most likely, lies somewhere in the middle.

But I stress: there is no reason you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

~ oliver taylor #

i think it would be a great way to highlight the best of, especially for those like myself who are relatively new to your blog!

~ rabsteen #

I’d approach it quite differently. You’ve already said that you have a ‘lot of dross’ on your site. So you know what that is, because you recognise it when you see it. Well, it’s simple, just delete what you regard as dross and leave the rest. Call what remains ‘highlights’ or something.

Some people think it’s just not in the ‘blogging spirit’ to delete entries, but personally I think you should have a better reason than that for knowingly leaving dross on the web. The web is already a giant electronic landfill site, and/or vastly overgrown garden. If people pruned their sites regularly the web as a whole would be improved, less time wasted, and some inroads into information overload made.

There is nothing interesting about having dead wood on your site

~ Jay #

Just because it’s “dross” doesn’t make it worthless, Jay.

~ ceejayoz #

Actually, Ceejayoz, one of the definitions of ‘dross’ in my dictionary is in fact ‘worthless’.

~ Jay #

I mentioned a few days ago that I think you should instead figure out a clever category system or something, or even a mint-influenced ‘most views’ section.

Having read Jay’s post, though, I think he’s really found the solution. When I restarted my blog at the end of last year, it was on the tail of a year-long hiatus. I switched from Wordpress to Textpattern, and in doing so I took the opportunity to get rid of all the crap. Well, maybe not all, but a good portion of it. I just now searched for “pending” in my article list - there have to be almost 100 entries that I removed from public view.

So: rework the categories, as you have apparently already done, and delete the fluff. Nobody viewing the archives cares how long it was between entries, so if what you wrote was ‘laziness-based’, it ought to go.

Also, for future reference, the New Oxford says:

dross

noun

something regarded as worthless; rubbish : there are bargains if you have the patience to sift through the dross.

foreign matter, dregs, or mineral waste, in particular scum formed on the surface of molten metal.

~ eric #

Worth is so subjective here, though. I took it as a “some of my entries aren’t at the level I’m striving for” instead of “some of my entries are utterly without worth to anyone”.

~ ceejayoz #

I could only wish that I had written some of these posts that might be called “dross”. I found this blog on Friday and I read about a quarter of your archives so far and I have been entertained and informed.

I could certainly see having something like a Best of or Most Viewed category but to prune any of the posts I have seen so far would be a loss for all future readers of this blog.

~ Dewayne Mikkelson #

Generally speaking, I consider the amount of discussion on an entry a good guideline to how “noteworthy” it is - entries garnering more discussion are obviously more interesting to your readers.

Particularly with the sort of content you produce - it’s brilliant discussion fodder.

It would be a good way to bring to light the more under-appreciated entries, too.

~ Richard #