A Question for Readers:
As you have probably noticed, we Volokh Conspirators tend to blog on a pretty eclectic set of topics. On Wednesday, for example, we blogged about sex discrimination and same-sex marriage; terminology used in news reports about terror attacks; civil lawsuits; word puzzles; retiring sports announcers; supreme court nominations; restaurants near Toledo; legal brief formattting; and a couple of other topics.
Here's my question: Do you like the mix? Or would you prefer if we divided the VC — either within the blog or by starting new spin-off blogs — so that there is more subject matter uniformity? This is an issue that comes up with a lot of blogs, and particularly with group blogs. Without editors to pass on whether a particular post topic is appropriate, bloggers tend to write about whatever they feel like writing about. Sometimes bloggers split up their work into two distinct blogs; for example, Stephen Bainbridge has his general blog and his wine blog. Analogously, we could split the VC into a "law and legal academia" blog and an "everything else" blog. Alternatively, perhaps we could just classify different posts by topic in a way that you could view topic-by-topic.
I'm curious whether readers have strong thoughts about seeing something like this at the VC. Should we keep it 'as is,' or try for a structure with more subject matter uniformity? As always, civil and respectful comments only. (Oh, and to be clear, this is just a question I have, not something that I have discussed with any of my co-bloggers. So even if you want it, I don't know whether it would happen.)
Here's my question: Do you like the mix? Or would you prefer if we divided the VC — either within the blog or by starting new spin-off blogs — so that there is more subject matter uniformity? This is an issue that comes up with a lot of blogs, and particularly with group blogs. Without editors to pass on whether a particular post topic is appropriate, bloggers tend to write about whatever they feel like writing about. Sometimes bloggers split up their work into two distinct blogs; for example, Stephen Bainbridge has his general blog and his wine blog. Analogously, we could split the VC into a "law and legal academia" blog and an "everything else" blog. Alternatively, perhaps we could just classify different posts by topic in a way that you could view topic-by-topic.
I'm curious whether readers have strong thoughts about seeing something like this at the VC. Should we keep it 'as is,' or try for a structure with more subject matter uniformity? As always, civil and respectful comments only. (Oh, and to be clear, this is just a question I have, not something that I have discussed with any of my co-bloggers. So even if you want it, I don't know whether it would happen.)
However, if any of you do start talking about wine, the time will have come to start a new blog.
I agree with Shelby though. Perhaps create category links (like Slashdot) and lead them to separate pages. But still keep everything on the main page. It's always nice to browse the different topics in one place.
Having said that, I second Greedy Clerk's post, although I might change "some" to "one" in his first sentence.
I guess this doesn't address Orin's question directly, but I think a great first step to improving the blog would be capping the number of entries each contributor could post each day. I think fewer, but more well-thought-out posts each day would be an improvement over 8 or 10 less-well-thought-out posts.
I tend to think the costs of splitting the blog up are much lower in this day of RSS, but I suppose a great number of people read it in the traditional format. Still, I tend to think division would be good. I think a post/author/day limit would be bad.
Instapundit is GOP talking points? Heh.
Even though, as Orin points out, this results in an eclectic presentation, it seems like there is nevertheless a coherent underlying feel to the blog. I couldn't say exactly what it is that bonds everything together (maybe Eugene's force of will?) but there is definately something unifying the blog despite the wide range.
Please don't change!
In general, though, this -- in a tie with Crooked Timber -- is one of my favorite sites for smart, broad-ranging, provocative, and challenging posts. Its current mix is essential to that!
There's so much specific stuff out there already. What separates this blog from the others is that it is not exclusively one legal issue or another.
As for Greedy Clerk's claim that the blog is one-sided - the majority of the bloggers on the site (and most likely the readers, I suspect) share a very broad common philosophy. I don't agree with a lot of the Chicago school/law and economics/utilitiarian thought that appears to be prevalent with many of the bloggers, but I know that when I come to this site, I'll get thoughtful entries by intelligent individuals who I respect and who come from a general philosophy similar to mine. Even if I didn't share the general philosophy, though, I would know that, in any event, the discourse on this blog is worthwhile.
In sum, I'd suggest keeping the blog the way it is - diverse content - with the regular bloggers keeping up and the "sometimes" bloggers keep chiming in from time to time.
Doug
I suppose at some point, the blog becomes unwieldy because of the number of contributors and the number of topics, but I don't think you are anywhere near that point yet. If you split up the blog, I suspect that fewer people will read postings on the non-law stuff, because you have a reputation for discussion on legal issues that brings people here from all over the blogosphere, but that would not necessarily bring them to a blog on miscellany.
With regard to allegations regarding the blog's intellectual honesty, though, I don't think that "yesterday's post" by Jim Lindgren can reasonably be described as akin to "the regurgitation of GOP talking points" when passages like the following are included:
Honest treatments of current and pertinent issues are what I expect to see at the VC, and that's what I think I'm getting. Keep it up!
I'm also with Greedy Clerk. I'm left-leaning myself, but that's actually part of the reason I like this site: to come and read intelligent viewpoints from the other side. Mostly I want that on legal issues (Kelo commentary, e.g.).
I'm much less interested in the day-to-day political stuff, especially when it just seems to correspond to the talking points of some DC hack. I agree about yesterday's Rove-Plame post -- I have little interest in that sort of thing. If I did, I'd read Powerline instead of Volokh.
Lately, though, there seems to be a strong correlation between a poster's politics, and his "legal" conclusions. That bothers me. Of course, I could be wrong: maybe all law is politics, and thus we should expect a perfect correlation between one's political opinions and one's legal views. But I'm not that cynical yet, and I don't let my personal opinions get in the way of my legal analysis, and I'm not even a law prof. So a professor should at least hold himself up to my low standards.
Anyhow, I already read a VC "spin-off": http://volokh.com/?bloggers=orin,eugene,randy,juan
(which, btw, also includes Puzzlebloggers Kevin's posts).
To clarify (?) what I think several commenters are saying, I accept the rightwing lean of the VC and don't think that posters should self-censor themselves. What I *would* like is that, if anyone's going to post on a partisan subject, it be either their personal gut reaction (because, hey, it's a blog) or an analysis based on their own expertise that adds to the debate---for ex, one of the VC's lawyers looking at whether the Espionage Act has any application in the Plame case. Whether "partisan" or not, this stuff is worthwhile.
Simply cribbing a bunch of stuff from PowerLine and posting it does indeed lower the level of the VC. Spoken as one who does indeed crib stuff in such manner for his own little blog, and is fully aware of the VC's superiority.
That's exactly how the blog posting should remain as well. No one goes to a party and talks about nothing but X especially if the party is mixer for a conference of professional Xs. Other things creep in, like nice places in Toledo to eat. As long as the party doesn't get rowdy or exceptionally dull, people stay.
I know I am staying.
One of Prof. Volokh's gifts is that he has a way of taking a different riff on subjects that have otherwise been done to death. For example, the other day, rather than getting into the issue of whether we do/do not torture people at Gitmo, whether the techniques we use are/are not acceptable, and so forth, he seized upon one particular line in a Sullivan post to ask the interesting question of whether Americans are really more tolerant of harsh conduct today than they once were.
Those sorts of posts are the "value added" of this blog, in one reader's opinion. Posts about whether Joe Wilson is a bum who deserved to have his wife outed, whether accurate or inaccurate, don't add much value to the blogosphere.
I think SCOTUSblog and its sister, The SCOTUS Nomination Blog, are a good example of where a group blog can be split since they have two distinct themes and the bloggers consistently stay on topic. It does not seem like the Conspirators have an interest in focusing their posts in the VC in this manner.
On the other hand, I think it might be very helpful for some of your readers if they could easily find the posts related to a particular topic, much as Shelby has suggested. I, frankly, don't know how technologically feasible that is, but I don't think you necessarily need to change the structure of the blog to accomplish that goal. If it's something people might like, but don't have to take advantage of, why not include it as an option?
I like the eclectic mix. Some things, of course, are more interesting than others, but I like the variety the blog offers, though I come here mostly for legal news and analysis. No need, in my opinion, to have spinoffs.
The search capability at the bottom of the page is pretty good, too, though you can't sort the results as many ways.
Would people rather read all posts about economics, or all posts about a specific economic subject (e.g.: bankruptcy)? All bankruptcy posts are already easy to find by carrying out a pico search on the web page.
Idea: would it be possible to create bayesian filter software, like the spam filters, that would categorize emailed blog posts into different user-designated categories? Then every user could have whatever categories they wanted...
And I suppose I must say something on-topic too: I like the eclectic mix of bloggers and blog topics.
That said: some more categorization of posts and/or a "Recent posts/recent comments" section would make the blog easier to navigate. Or perhaps have only the first paragraph or two of posts visible without clicking on "more"? As it is, the site is a bit fo a pain to navigate: you often have to scroll through insanely long posts on subjects you're not interested in to even see what other posts there are.
But, hey, what I'd find nifty is if you brought in -- if only for a different reflection on your legal issue of the day -- a molecular biologist or astronomer, an aerospace engineer or CEO, a retired military man, an RN or doc, a farmer or airplane mechanic, and so forth. Really different people. Folks maybe without a Ph.D. or J.D., who haven't seen a college campus in 20 years, but who've maybe learned a curious thing or two in the School of Hard Knocks and can express themselves as clearly and interestingly as your regulars.
Maintain the mix.
By the way, my comment about some of the "hackery" (not my word) was not directed to the political leanings of the blog. I am probably fairly conservative on lots of issues (crime, pers'l freedom, etc.), but just that the reasoning of some opinions read more like PowerLine or Insty where we know the conclusion --- and in a few cases are simple cut and paste jobs from PowerLine.
So, if more people are visiting, and you people are enjoying yourselves, why split the blog into many blogs?
If you collectively want to make things for convenient for people who like to see only a sub set of topics, you could set up your blog software to file posts in "categories". If you organize it properly, people who only like certain categories could visit posts in those categories only.
And more Boardman!
I do miss Jacob Levy, though.
Jacob Levy is definitely missed!
I'd prefer some more consistency in the quality of the thought here. You get four, five, six, seven smart, self-aware, rigorous posts, and then you get a partisan hack-job post. Then four, fix, six, seven smart, self-aware posts again. That's certainly a lot better than the ratio at almost every other blog, but still, I don't see the reason for the occasional post that appears to be little more than a reprise of the talking points from a spin-master, considering the general excellence and care.
The short lead-in is easier on the eyes because it makes the page look less cluttered and comments are interesting and fun. A very small suggestion, with so many different people contributing, it would be useful if a particular writing style would be adopted by all. Indent paragraphs or not, blocks for quotes or not, all caps for titles or not. Sorry for being picky, but page layout adds a lot to the overall enjoyment of reading.
a. likes the mix, and can use a scroll button when he doesn't
b. favours a cap on new bloggers, but likes occasional guest bloggers
So, stay away from political hotspots, unless absolutely necessary, and when you do cover such, turn off commenting.
But I really do like the fact that the comment feature is now enabled. The level of comments is, so far, much higher than I see most other places.
Keep doing what y'all are doing now - why screw up a good thing?
That's because they enabled comments. Each comment adds about three more hits--and that's assuming that people only comment once. I've always thought it was very misleading for TLB and Technorati not to distinguish between blogs that allow comments and those that don't. Unless they're weeding them out, but I can't see how.
The mix is fine, but every time I see one of the bloggers put a list of other posts on the topic at the bottom of his post it drives me nuts. How hard is it to categorize the posts?
As I understand it, the list of other posts on the topic are supposed to be narrower than a list of all posts within a single category. They refer only to posts on the same narrow subject/story, not all posts in that category. The function of the links back to previous posts are to connect the reader to previous posts that help them to understand the current post.
A category could be something like "economics" or "bankruptcy." A thread of posts (with links back to previous posts in the thread) would be for something like all commentary on "bill 1012, the new bankrupcy legislation."
Then when bankruptcy-related bill 389 is proposed next year, posts on that subject would not link back to the 1012 thread. If, on the other hand, the text of bill 389 was very similar to that of bill 1012, it would probably be put in the same thread (because those past posts would be useful to understanding the newer posts).
In other words, write what you want and I'll read what I want. :-)
Nick
The one downside of the Blogosphere is the tendency by some to craft a complete fabric of microblogs that "think just like me" and never engage with the issues of the day. An eclectic BLOG like this, albeit one with a particular lense, creates a far more enganging confrontation with diverse world views, inluding a recognition of the consequences (good and bad) of living a viewpoint.
Sure there are flaws, but what doesn't have them. Any "cure" is likely to have more/worse ones.
But unless I'm missing something, they aren't categorizing now. Why not start there? If I were to click on a "bankruptcy" section, odds are that the first ten posts would be the same that are now itemized in each post, and I wouldn't have to jump around.
It's a small gripe. But I really think a place like this benefits from category pages.
Bigger picture: Blogs are neat in a way, but still seem sorta frustrating. I think there is some spectrum of interactivity of content on the net:
webpages, newspapers, blogs w/o comments, blogs w/comments, bulletin boards/forums, chat rooms.
The neat things about blogs are the content and the currency. However, that whole serial nature of the content and front pagishness and such leaves something to be desired. Anyone know of some good analysis thinking about this issue?
What's the big deal, somebody doesn't know how to use the "Page Down" key?