A commenter asks, “The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog. What should one call the various postings by members of the conspiracy? Are they blogs too, or is it better to call them posts or something else?”
I’ve seen a few people — usually ones that don’t seem particularly blog-savvy — referring to a blog post as a “blog.” My sense is that this is not a standard usage. Blog posts by the blog’s authors are customarily called “posts.” (Items added by members of the public who aren’t part of the blog’s self-selected set of authors are called “comments.”) “Blog” is generally used to refer to the entire site. Using “blog” to mean “post” is, I think, likely to annoy and distract quite a few readers, and make them suspect that the user isn’t really blog-savvy.
The customary meaning of “blog,” by the way, is consistent with the its origin in the phrase “Web log.” As I understand it, entries in a traditional log (such as a ship’s log or a computer file that logs certain information) are generally referred to as “entries,” and “log” refers to the book or file in which the entries are placed. Of course, one shouldn’t fall into the etymological fallacy by generally assuming that current meaning tracks the origins of the phrase. But in this case, I think it does; and perhaps the “blog” / “logbook” link can serve a useful mnemonic for people who might otherwise be tempted to use “blog” in the sense of “post.”
UPDATE: I’ve also heard people use “article” to refer to a blog post, even a post on a blog that pretty clearly isn’t organized in a newspaper- or magazine-like format. There’s nothing inherently illogical about this usage, but it too strikes me as non-standard, and thus likely to make the user look like an outsider to blogging.
The same would be true for “entry,” used to refer to a blog post. It’s logical in theory — if you can have entries in logs, why not in Web logs? — but unidiomatic in practice.
Scrutineer says:
Reader comments are just “comments,” not “posts,” right? [EV replies: Good question; I slightly revised the post to answer it.]
February 15, 2010, 1:54 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I assume so. So you and I are commenters, not posters. Posters would be the members of the Conspiracy.
February 15, 2010, 1:58 pmPeteP says:
“Elements of the Conspiracy “
February 15, 2010, 2:00 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Now that we have cleared up the terminology, does this mean that the word “entry” should never be used?
February 15, 2010, 2:05 pmU.Va. Grad says:
Seconded.
February 15, 2010, 2:08 pmandy says:
Posters cannot be co-conspirators because they do not have an unlawful purpose.
To be a co-conspirator, a poster must have (i) an agreement; (ii) for an unlawful purpose; (iii) with a meeting of the minds; and (iv) must have committed an overt act as required in some jurisdictions.
Here, there is an agreement to post. There has been an agreement between the posters to post for the benefit of the readers of the Volokh Conspiracy thus there is a meeting of the minds. The actual post qualifies as an overt act in furtherance of the posting conspiracy. What is lacking is an agreement for an unlawful purpose.
As a result, posters cannot properly be named co-conspirators.
February 15, 2010, 2:09 pmandy says:
On further thought, the question was what are the posts called not what are the posters called.
I revise my previous post.
The posts themselves can be called “Overt acts”
February 15, 2010, 2:24 pmohwilleke says:
While ideosyncratic, blog posts by non-front page editors of Daily Kos, Square State network blog platforms and several other group blogs following these examples commonly call blog posts “diaries.”
February 15, 2010, 2:24 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I agreed with you completely until this one. It’s much less common than “post,” but I don’t think it’s unidiomatic.
February 15, 2010, 2:28 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
“Corrupting the youth,” a la Socrates?
February 15, 2010, 2:29 pmGerbilsbite says:
I’ve done ghostwriting and online campaign operations for a number of political candidates. I usually use “post” and “entry” interchangeably, with a tendency to use “entry” for campaign-administered sites (such as a campaign blog) and “post” for pieces on public or community blogs.
Indeed, my biggest problem with your argument is that it seems to presuppose that a blog is a blog is a blog. But an entry on a campaign blog and a post to a community blog should generally be treated as distinct animals from each other, since the form the message takes will usually vary greatly depending on the audience (perhaps this is one of the changes that will become more apparent as more and more candidates realize that they need separate press management and blog management programs in their communications departments).
February 15, 2010, 2:32 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Fr0om all of this, I gather that optimal usage would treat “post” as what is written for a computerized journal (i.e., blog) and “entry” for what is written for a non-computerized journal.
February 15, 2010, 2:38 pmandy says:
As far as I know, corrupting the youth through law-related posts on the internet is not a prohibited activity in the California penal code.
February 15, 2010, 2:39 pmJmaie says:
Sidetrack, but why is the “co-” in “co-conspirator” at all necessary?
February 15, 2010, 3:01 pmAUstu says:
I’m inclined to call them Bposts or Barticles.
February 15, 2010, 3:18 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I have another question. Is it better to say that one “writes” a post or comment, or should it be “puts up” a post or comment?
February 15, 2010, 3:23 pmEugene Volokh says:
AUstu: Are you inclined to want to be understood?
Jmaie: My sense is that “co-conspirator” stresses that the conspirator is conspiring with the people who were just mentioned. “Conspirator” doesn’t always convey that as sharply (though it sometimes does). Perhaps because of this, “co-conspirator” is used even when “conspirator” would obviously mean exactly that: For instance, a Google query I just ran gave me 11200 ostensible hits for “my co-conspirator” (just to give one example) and 3880 hits for “my conspirator.”
Troll_DC2: I think both are used. I prefer “writes.”
February 15, 2010, 3:37 pmJohn Burgess says:
I think the hierarchy is Blog–>Post–>Comment. I sometimes use ‘article’ or ‘entry’ to refer to a post, but only for the sake of avoiding repetition. I consider them synonymous, but not as common/standard.
I draw no distinction whatsoever between journals/diaries/blogs. The writers’ intentions are immaterial; the content is immaterial (as long as it’s of the comment+link variety); what counts is solely the format.
February 15, 2010, 3:40 pmBT says:
Then why is Professor X, from the University of East Anglia, always referred to as Guest Blogger and not Guest Poster? Wouldn’t Guest Poster be the correct title or description of Professor X if he is not a regular contributor to the wild and wacky world that is the Volokh Conspiracy?
February 15, 2010, 3:44 pmPonderosa says:
Bexcellent Bcomment on the Barticle.
Bwell
February 15, 2010, 3:53 pmkimsch says:
blog: noun. A weblog.
blog: verb. to write a blog either solo or as part of a group.
post: a single entry on the blog, generally with a title, author, and content. Just one exception of many; Instapundit does not use titles, and many of his posts are pithier than a tweet.
comment: depending on the blog, a person who comments on a blog post may be either registered or unregistered. Some blogs allow completely anonymous commenting, some require user names and valid email addresses before the commenter may comment.
I’d add that I disagree with the print button at Big Government. The button says “Print Blog” and I don’t think anyone would want to waste that much paper.
February 15, 2010, 4:22 pmEugene Volokh says:
BT: Our bloggers blog here, which is to say write posts. When we invite someone to blog for a week, we call them guest-bloggers because they are doing what we do, but only temporarily. A guest-blogger is to a blogger what a guest-host is to a host (without the mild internal linguistic tension present in the term “guest-host”).
February 15, 2010, 5:38 pmerp says:
Are we commenters or commentors? Spell check doesn’t like the latter, but IMO it has just a bit more gravitas than the former.
February 15, 2010, 6:10 pmPatrick says:
I’ve written a little as a PhD student on anonymity and comments on blogs and news websites. I use “posts” to refer to individual entries on a blog. I DISLIKE the non-word “commenters” and prefer the term “comment posters” or just “posters,” mostly because I feel we oughtn’t create words when we don’t need to. But I’m a would-be academic, so I of course I would say that.
February 15, 2010, 6:16 pmBen P says:
The overall website is a Blog.
Individual writings on the blog are “Posts on the Blog” or “Posts.” Entries might fit some formats, and seems to cannotate a more informal livejournal/diary type thing.
People who post comments are commenters.
Sometimes I’ll refer to the whole of a post and the associated comments as a “thread.” But I think that’s a little more obscure and comes from me getting my start on the internet posting mainly in forums.
February 15, 2010, 6:17 pmMark N. says:
I sometimes call a post an “article” or “essay” if it’s a long-form, well-argued piece that just happens to be published as a blog post, but could conceivably have been published as a working paper, newspaper op-ed, or even just an essay on the author’s website. To me, “blog post” carries a connotation of a fairly short piece of writing that is often timely but may not age well, so I tend to avoid referring to pieces of writing that I consider significant and of lasting value as “blog posts”, even if that’s how they happen to have been first published.
As for “entry”, I think it actually is idiomatic for personal blogs, but not for academic ones. I’ve frequently heard people call posts on LiveJournal “livejournal entries”, though perhaps it’s the juxtaposition with the word “journal” that makes it sound more natural there.
February 15, 2010, 6:20 pmBT says:
Would a female blogger be a bloggerette?
February 15, 2010, 6:21 pmSteve P. says:
I am definitely not an outsider to blogging and I still occasionally use “article” and “entry”. A long, technical, comprehensive, and thoroughly edited post I occasionally call an article (“Did you read that article on Git at LosTechies yesterday?”). A short post on a blog that either a) has only one author, or b) is narrowly defined in scope I may call an entry (“The latest entry at wtfjs.com is hilarious!”).
Usually I’ll still say “post”, just not always. And I doubt I’m completely internally consistent.
February 15, 2010, 6:22 pmSara (Pal2Pal) says:
A person is blogging who puts up posts to a blog/weblog. I’ve seen posts called posts, articles, entries, and memes, but I think the most accepted usage is to say there is a new post up at such and such a blog. Comments are not posts, even if the actual blog post is short and meant only to generate comments, where all the good info can be found.
Some blog software allows for what I like to call mini-blogs or sub-blogs. As at Kos, these are sometimes called diaries. But then there are places like First Things that include separate and distinct blogs such as The Anchoress or Gateway Pundit. I’m not exactly sure what the benefit of doing this is, but both the previously mentioned blogs were high traffic blogs in their own right and to make the change must have had some benefit.
Then there are group blogs of several bloggers who produce regular pieces for the blog. In addition, there are blogs who accept and encourage reader submissions from those not designated as regular authors. The Brietbart “Bigs” seem to be going that route, but there are others who do this regularly as well, such as Flopping Aces or American Thinker. These are usually marked plainly that they are “Reader posts” and usually you’ll find a disclaimer somewhere on the principal blog about not being responsible for the views of the “reader posts” and/or commenters.
February 15, 2010, 6:30 pmMichael F. Martin says:
In my experience, there is a slight difference in usage between US and UK bloggers, with UK writers using “blog” to refer more often to what I would call a blog post than US writers. No empirical evidence. N is small. &c., &c.
February 15, 2010, 6:31 pmMartha says:
According to the OED, “commenter, -or” has been around since 1387:
Of course the earlier usages had nothing to do with blogs. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the latest revision gets to the Cs (the editors started the latest revision with M).
February 15, 2010, 6:54 pmSonicfrog says:
It’s interesting that we are watching the creation of a whole new lexicon that revolves around technology. A number of years back, my band was practicing at an old semi-abandoned farmhouse that had been in my guitarists family for over a century, but had seen little use in many years. After practice, we were thumbing through some old books, some more the 50 years old. Two that caught my attention were among the oldest on the shelf, dating back to 1910-ish. They were first hand accounts describing the joy of owning an automobile, a very rare thing in the day. The books described not only the experiences of owning and driving the at-the-time unique machines, but also covered the technologies involve in the “gasoline powered internal combustion engine”, but also described various roadside repairs, which was vital knowledge as there were very few if any repair facilities, except maybe in the largest cities. There were so many terms for things we now include in our daily lexicon that simply didn’t exist in the day. There was no “gas station” or repair shop” as we know it. The term “car” appeared nowhere in either of the books – if you owned an automobile, you were called an “automobilist”.
Like that period, we are seeing new terms, or the adaptation of existing terms, that accommodate to the emergence of new technologies. My favorites:
Blogiversary – the anniversary of a blog publication (mine is January5, 2005).
Blog-Pal – a friendship that exists strictly through communication via blogs. See “pen-pal” for reference.
And my favorite…
The blargument!!!!
February 15, 2010, 7:01 pmEugene Volokh says:
Patrick: By the “non-word” “commenter,” do you mean the word that means “One who makes or writes comments“? If so, then it’s a bit late to be complaining about “creat[ing] words,” since that one appears in the 1913 Webster’s. The OED attests it back to 1387, though it reports that it became frequent in the seventeenth century.
February 15, 2010, 7:02 pmhilzoy fangirl says:
Interestingly, “blog entry” (with quotes) gets 105 million hits on Google; “blog post” (with quotes) gets only 27 million hits. However, NEWS;US since 2/10/10 gives only 12 hits for the phrase “blog entry” and 48 hits for “blog post.”
“Blog article” gets 4 million hits in Google and zero in NEWS;US since 2/10/10.
February 15, 2010, 7:04 pmSonicfrog says:
Oh, I refer to a “blog entry” as either an article or post. In five years, I don’t recall using the term “entry”. It seems so… formal, and doesn’t feel right for what I do.
February 15, 2010, 7:09 pmSonicfrog says:
PS. I lay claim to the term “blargument”. I made it up, and no one can take it away from me!
February 15, 2010, 7:19 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Sonicfrog, I went to your blog and noticed the motto at the top: “Exposing my faulty thought processes… one post at a time!” So you agree with EV as to what a submission by the blogger is called.
February 15, 2010, 7:19 pmSonicfrog says:
Yyyyep!
February 15, 2010, 7:42 pmRexx Shelton says:
It seems to me that the use of the word ‘article’ to describe a post in one’s blog is consistent with the definition of article, i.e., nonfiction prose forming an independent part of a publication, assuming of course, that post the post on the Internet is the same as publishing it.
February 15, 2010, 9:05 pmRexx Shelton says:
It seems to me that the use of the word ‘article’ to describe a post in one’s blog is consistent with the definition of article, i.e., nonfiction prose forming an independent part of a publication, assuming of course, that posting the post on the Internet is the same as publishing it.
February 15, 2010, 9:05 pmPatrick says:
Well then. Cheers to Martha and Prof. Volokh for setting me straight. I’ll unbunch my undergarments about “commenters.”
But can I still be bugged by the following?:
Judge Richard Tognarelli of Illinois, in an order denying the Alton Telegraph’s motion to quash a subpoena to identify several anonymous commenters (via the Citizen Media Law Project):
” … a Subpoena Duces Tecum was issued to Mr. Jim Shrader, publisher of the Alton Telegraph to appear before the Court and produce “any records leading to full identity, including name, address and IP address for five bloggers on the Alton Telegraph website: john34’18, purplebutterfly, mrssuily, cstyre and pnbcme.”
The order also refers to the “bloggers” as “commentators.”
February 15, 2010, 9:26 pmBad Science says:
EEK! The word police! Run!
February 15, 2010, 11:18 pmKinda a first amendment thing, whether blog or post is properly used is dependent on the blog or who runs it.
Which, is exactly what you are doing here,
Giving sound advice to someone who asked a question, oh crap, excuse me while I flee!
marc says:
blost!
(pronounced ‘bloast’ of course….)
February 16, 2010, 1:14 amSonicfrog says:
Marc, a “bloast” is, of course, when you write about some self aggrandizing achievement on your blog! :-)
PS. I just got 63 comments and counting from a post I did two days ago… I’m awesome!!!!
February 16, 2010, 4:20 pmeve isk says:
I made it up, and no one can take it away from me!
June 14, 2010, 9:18 am