Blogging Now Good for You, Still Bad for Some
Several users have alerted us to a May Scientific American article that has been getting some attention more recently. Apparently, blogging is now good for you and, at least in this context, is the suggested reason for the explosion of blogging. This is quite the departure from some of the results we have seen in practice for more prolific bloggers.
Oh yeah, give us even more blags!
I prefer to think of it as, "Blogging good for me, bad for society" -- at least considering what I'd probably write if I had one.
Next week's news: Study finds that blogging causes cancer!
My blog
Maybe you should start a blog to blow the lid off this whole thing?
Journalling isn't always good. Just ask Hans Reiser.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Blogging about Eastasia is still considered harmful, unless we're allied with Eurasia. Wait...
Blogs are good for you? What about those people who died in a blog accident, you insensitive clod?
So whining about yourself on your own blog is good for you. But writing about something of interest to others isn't.
Well, it explains the success of Myspace.
"You are not trying. You are whining." Nigel to Andrea, "The Devil Wears Prada".
Researchers also confirm that reading summaries written by ScuttleMonkey lowers your IQ by 30 points.
This is exactly how they ensnare bloggers. If somebody is writing a blog about your company and you don't know who it is, just look for the person whose writing and communications skills have increased the most since the blog began!
Then you get the comfort of knowing at least you aren't that guy.