Comments on: Blogging style and etiquette http://www.libdemvoice.org/blogging-style-and-etiquette-16684.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:46:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matt Wardman http://www.libdemvoice.org/blogging-style-and-etiquette-16684.html#comment-101327 Matt Wardman Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:57:54 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16684#comment-101327 I think some of the traditional "put it in the first sentence" stuff now applies to the Title - as the hook that will catch many readers will be the first 55 chars (on Google) or the first 100 or so (on Twitter). I think some of the traditional “put it in the first sentence” stuff now applies to the Title – as the hook that will catch many readers will be the first 55 chars (on Google) or the first 100 or so (on Twitter).

]]> By: Jonathan Calder http://www.libdemvoice.org/blogging-style-and-etiquette-16684.html#comment-101198 Jonathan Calder Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:23:13 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16684#comment-101198 Thanks for the comment, Andrew. I do not think it is realistic to counsel new bloggers to contact the people involved in a story before writing about it. The advice to be wary of what is reported in newspapers is sound, but I see nothing wrong with linking to a newspaper article you find interesting. What you should be wary of is ranting about a story on the sole basis of reports in the newspapers. Still, it's a free country and some people blog precisely because they enjoy a good rant. That is their right, but it may affect how much attention readers pay to their views. Thanks for the comment, Andrew.

I do not think it is realistic to counsel new bloggers to contact the people involved in a story before writing about it.

The advice to be wary of what is reported in newspapers is sound, but I see nothing wrong with linking to a newspaper article you find interesting. What you should be wary of is ranting about a story on the sole basis of reports in the newspapers.

Still, it’s a free country and some people blog precisely because they enjoy a good rant. That is their right, but it may affect how much attention readers pay to their views.

]]> By: Andrew Suffield http://www.libdemvoice.org/blogging-style-and-etiquette-16684.html#comment-101144 Andrew Suffield Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:52:10 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/?p=16684#comment-101144 A vitally important note on linking for serious posts: show your sources, as directly as you can. These days your source is probably available on the web, so link to it. If you're talking about a question or debate in parliament, link to the relevant spot in Hansard. For a letter that you received personally, scan it. Often you're stuck with nothing better than news reports (which are wrong more often than people think), but you can at least show where it you got it from. This sort of thing is the difference between rumour and checkable facts. On speed and accuracy: these days there is a great deal of pressure to rush things out as soon as you hear about them. For some reason, everybody is convinced that 'fast' is better than 'right' - witness the recent <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/watfords-liberal-mayor-what-iain-dale-didnt-report-16690.html" rel="nofollow">reporting on the Watford playground affair</a>. The entire thing was a fabrication, and very rapidly revealed as such, but due to the speed of the internet, the lie really did manage to run <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/28/council-bans-parents.html" rel="nofollow">around the world</a> before the truth could get its boots on. And all of this happened because people wanted to put the story out quickly, rather than taking the time to find out what was going on. Be careful about what you're reposting, because the author probably wasn't - even major newspapers are sloppy. Try to contact the people involved yourself. If they respond after you post about it (in politics, it can take about a week for people to reply), go back and add their comments to your post. A vitally important note on linking for serious posts: show your sources, as directly as you can. These days your source is probably available on the web, so link to it. If you’re talking about a question or debate in parliament, link to the relevant spot in Hansard. For a letter that you received personally, scan it. Often you’re stuck with nothing better than news reports (which are wrong more often than people think), but you can at least show where it you got it from. This sort of thing is the difference between rumour and checkable facts.

On speed and accuracy: these days there is a great deal of pressure to rush things out as soon as you hear about them. For some reason, everybody is convinced that ‘fast’ is better than ‘right’ – witness the recent reporting on the Watford playground affair. The entire thing was a fabrication, and very rapidly revealed as such, but due to the speed of the internet, the lie really did manage to run around the world before the truth could get its boots on. And all of this happened because people wanted to put the story out quickly, rather than taking the time to find out what was going on.

Be careful about what you’re reposting, because the author probably wasn’t – even major newspapers are sloppy. Try to contact the people involved yourself. If they respond after you post about it (in politics, it can take about a week for people to reply), go back and add their comments to your post.

]]>