Seen in Sam’s comments, and reproduced here in its entirety in case Sam deletes it overnight:
Sam,
I’m looking for your insights into programming, not how your freakin travel plans are working out. Granted it’s your right to post whatever you want - I’m certainly not trying to tell you what to post. But I suspect that if you want to keep your readers you’ll cut back on the crap about your personal life. I suggest you take a lesson from Chris Brumme - that is truly a worthwhile blog. Just an FYI.
Regards, Saul K.
I have a loooong list of things to say to people like this (and I can say many of them in two languages). I certainly don’t speak for Sam, but to the people who have sent me similar letters, let me just say this:
I must have missed the part where I was put under any sort of obligation towards you whatsoever.
Feel free to post similar experiences in the comments.
Motherfucker, chinga tu madre, motherfucker.
Update: Sam responds. Cat pictures for everyone!
Hey Mark, what’s with all this boring technical stuff? I came here to read about painful addiction stories, not the geeky details of date formats!
If you don’t cut it out, I’ll have no choice but to spider your site repeatedly, print it out, and tape it to the walls of my house.
Comment by Aaron Swartz — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 2:24 am
I have no idea of the tone or content of letters you’ve received, however your reaction to the letter Sam received seems a little extreme.
“Granted it’s your right to post whatever you want - I’m certainly not trying to tell you what to post.”
Seems reasonable.
“But I suspect that if you want to keep your readers you’ll cut back on the crap about your personal life.”
The word “crap” is a little harsh, but i don’t exactly see where he is saying that Sam is ‘obliged’ to do anything. In fact, I see the complete opposite. He says that its Sam’s right to do whatever he wants and he is simply giving advice about maintaining readership - advice that Sam can either take or leave.
Your reaction:
“I must have missed the part where I was put under any sort of obligation towards you whatsoever.”
Seems offbase given the example cited. Now maybe you are completely justified in that response given the mail *you’ve* personally received, but we can’t tell unless you actually post one.
Comment by MikeyC — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 2:25 am
Mark: Seems like just about everyone walks around with a sense of entitlement these days. It’s everywhere, from the small stuff (”your blog is boring, entertain me!”) to the big (”my free Blogger/Fotoblog/Whatever account isn’t working the way I expect… damn you all to hell!”).
When I see comments like that, my first thought is: “If someone is giving you something for nothing, say ‘thank you’, or walk the fuck away.” A little gratitude goes a long way.
On the flipside, if you’re performing in front of an audience, it seems to me that there may actually be *some* obligation that is owed the crowd. I won’t try to define the terms of that obligation with any precision, but it feels as if it exists. The audience deserves respect… not in any specific form, but thought should be given to their needs.
So I guess what I’m saying is, maybe you *do* have an obligation… not to that specific individual, but to your audience as a whole. And the audience has an obligation to respect your generosity… not the individual words you post, but certainly the giving spirit in which they’re posted.
Comment by Roger Benningfield — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 2:34 am
see you in the map. I’m playing with new tools (for me), RSS and geourl. Then popup your post and I come here to say hello.
Hello from the south of Brazil.
beijo
Suzana
Comment by Anonymous — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 2:40 am
While as the name of the site shows *in*great*detail* just what exactly your site is about. To which, there is no end to the value I think we can all find in ANY of your posts, I am positive some readers just don’t get it. Screw ‘em. It’s your site. It’s “Dive Into Mark” (and whatever the hell he wants to talk about) not “Dive Into Mark — Technical Stuff Only”.
Comment by Noel D. Jackson — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 2:41 am
This discussion is, of course, predicated on the assumption that Sam *cares* whether Saul subscribes to his blog.
That is to say, if you care about having (maintaining) an audience, then you need to take their tastes into account. You can pretend that you don’t care (some audiences dig that arrogance thang) but, when it comes down to it, we all know you do.
The only real freedom comes if you truly don’t care…
Comment by Jacques Distler — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 3:25 am
I continue to wrestle over why it is that I blog. Is it for me in a sense of identity, catharsis, creativity, something else? Or is it for the readers: friends, relatives, just anyone who drops by the site? I wonder at times if answering the “why” will help me better determine what sort of relationship I have with the readers.
Usually, I’m pretty convinced that I blog in order to have conversation that “persists.” That’s probably the foremost reason why this sort of feedback seems so insolent: it’s not like I’ve forced anyone to read Our Story, if you don’t want to participate in the conversation, then go away. Any criticism that I receive is generally met with a link to our Content Policy:
http://www.kennsarah.net/beta/about.shtml#content-policy
I also never cease to be amazed at how often Heather Armstrong witnesses this exact same behavior:
http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/06_11_2003.html.
I don’t know…maybe the depersonalization of the Internet makes people forget that there’s another person at the other end of the wire.
Comment by Ken Walker — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 3:27 am
In my view the depersonalization of content is the real danger. Like the way people say, “It’s just business.” Depersonalization allows us to rationalize beliefs and behaviour a person would never allow. Depersonalization is control. Depersonalization separates our selves from our works. It is a pretense built on a lie. I value much more code when I understand the mind that created it. And I won’t trust code - or anything else - separated from the passion, the heart and the determination of the person behind it.
Comment by Stephen Downes — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 3:44 am
Frankly I’m offended over that comment. Saul grudginly admits that Sam can post anything he wants, but the whole tone of the comment is disrespectful and offensive.
I haven’t read Sam’s site, but unless the post that elicited that response was the first time he ever posted about something personal, I dare say that his audience is used to the varied nature of his entries.
My blog is purely a personal one. I write ‘personal crap’ almost exclusively. Occasionally, I’ll post entries about what I’ve learned about Movable Type or some script that I’ve found. Hey, guess what? Of my readership, maybe two are interested. The rest skip those entries. That’s their prerogative. Not once has someone told me I needed to not post things like that in order to keep my audience.
If Saul isn’t interested in the personal entries he can just *gasp* not read them!
Comment by Patricia — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 3:54 am
Pedantic. Pompous. Utterly pretentious and self indulgent.
That’s me, according to one (or maybe two) people.
After two years, I’m still hovering in the 300-400 hits per week range.
And when the bit about the pedantry came to life, it occurred to me that I have better places to post about Webgeeking or other Stuff I Know About.
Personal sites are funny that way, that people might actually TALK ABOUT THEMSELVES. Omigod, he is a narcissist! We cannot let that infamy stand!
(Isn’t a certain amount of narcissism prerequisite to the task of building a site with one’s own name on it, in the first place?)
Whatever.
Comment by ben — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 6:14 am
I think Sam’s commentator is simply rude. I guess a consensus etiquette for blogs hasn’t yet crystallised (blogequette? urrgh). I think to balance this guy’s line, it should be considered perfectly acceptable for Sam to delete the comment.
Comment by Danny Ayers — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 6:16 am
Wow. I’m glad my blog isn’t popular enough for me to get stupid posts and emails like this. My initial instinct would be to send a response with 3 words in it
“Go fuck yourself”
Hopefully I’d calm down I’d probably end up sending something like Mark’s suggested response although mine would probably be harsher.
Comment by Dare Obasanjo — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 6:44 am
I write whatever I write when I hit the keyboard. Often I have no control over it. Sometimes I delete stuff that just reads as rubbish, and sometimes a short post becomes a long massive one. I feel great everytime I get a new reader, even if they don’t stay for long. But I don’t write to give an audience what they want because I can’t. I can only write what flows when I hit the keyboard.
I like the mix of personal and technical on most sites. If I didn’t I wouldn’t read it. I do wish I could be more creative at times, but hey that’s just me. Ken Walker’s disclaimer is brilliant.
Comment by Adrian Sevitz — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 7:45 am
Sam seems to like[1] more the Clash’s “Give them enough rope”[2], than “Cut the crap”[3].
1. Sam’s answer ( http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1486.html )
2. Give’em enough rope ( http://www.lyricsdepot.com/album/give-em-enough-rope.html )
3. Cut the crap ( http://www.lyricsdepot.com/album/cut-the-crap.html )
Personally, I prefer “London Calling” and “Combat Rock” :-)
Comment by Santiago Gala — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 8:01 am
Saul did two things that were very wrong.
First, communications like this, however much or little appreciated by the blogger, should be private. Sam may well want to know why someone is no longer interested in his blog. But however Saul worded this, it is criticism of a personal nature - and thuis should have been emailed to Sam and not commented.
Second, Saul - like many when the subject of spam comes up - seems to forget something very basic to PC work. It’s called the DELETE button. Just as Sam is not obligated to write solely about his programming insights, Saul is not obligated to read everything that comes down the RSS pipeline either.
Comment by DD — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 8:35 am
We’re not obliged to make our blogs interesting to complete strangers, and we’re not obliged to provide the standards support documentation for browsers when the developers themselves don’t or won’t do it themselves.
Bitter? Ask again in the morning
– CB
Comment by CodeBitch — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 8:41 am
Dear Sam:
I truly value your insights into programming. How about I pay you money for your expertise?
I’ll pay you X number of dollars per month for the honor of receiving said insight and we can do this via email. What do you think?
Comment by Anonymous — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 8:49 am
I agree with Danny; this commenter is simply rude.
However, one aspect that bothers me a little is: Why do we tend to believe netiquette (or in this case blogequette) is any different from real life-etiquette?
Comment by Arve — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 8:51 am
Sweet jeezus. I’m almost glad I’m not running a blog like this one. What kind of jackass complains about the content of a FREE website? To the OP: Ya got a mouse? Click away then and STFU
Comment by Karl Core — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 9:26 am
I haven’t had time to read through all the posts above, so my apologies if what I have to say is relatively trite or has been said before.
I like sites with colour. I like sites with a bit of humanity. All the best sites mix “target” content, like programming insights, with personal anecdotes and stories.
I’d get a bloody computer manual if I only wanted programming stuff.
Comment by Chris — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 10:24 am
Comment 16: “… we?re not obliged to provide the standards support documentation for browsers”
Is this a comment on Hyatt, who says he don’t like them charts?
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2003_06.html#003539
I can’t imagine how Saul could be so arrogant. But I think if I were Sam I might laugh rather than getting angry.
Well, I hope I would … :-)
Comment by Mike — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 11:28 am
If there is a point in blogging, it is in that they are personal texts, random crap reflecting the author’s immediate thoughts. If people start limiting themselves to what their “audience” wants, then they are not bloggers, but columnists. There are plenty of those around. The fact that people go and seek out blogs when there are extremely competent people writing interesting columns, both in print and on the internet, tells me that there is something in particular that is attractive about this form.
Comment by ucblockhead — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 12:20 pm
Personally, I don’t care about personal writing as long as it’s thoughtful and sincere. See ftrain.com.
Technical writing is also good, as long as it accomplished a purpose.
This is a weblog.. aren’t we supposed to be arguing about funk or something? :(
Comment by Warren — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 3:47 pm
MikeyC doesn’t get it, and I resent him staining the good name carried by Mike’s the world ’round.
Comment by Mike — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 4:08 pm
“MikeyC doesn’t get it, and I resent him staining the good name carried by Mike’s the world ’round.”
I think Michael Jackson beat me to it, dude.
Comment by MikeyC — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 4:47 pm
Whilst obviously everyone has a right to blog whatever they want, if enough users either don’t want to see at all or really want to see personal life entries, wouldn’t having two versions of a blog be a good idea?
The default having everything, and then “tech” and “personal” versions. Or if you really want to get snazzy, give users options to control what individual categories they see?
I think user customization of blogs is something to look at for the future…
Comment by Tom Gilder — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 4:52 pm
“wouldn’t having two versions of a blog be a good idea?”
I don’t know if it would, because the tech people would see every personal blog entry as one less tech blog entry unless the author is willing to ensure that (s)he posts to both blogs daily in equal amounts.
Dave Hyatt split up his blog into tech (safari) and personal and the end result seems to be that blog entries have become less frequent on either side. So I don’t think this approach would really satisfy many.
Comment by MikeyC — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 5:02 pm
Mark, straight question — how is your using Spanish curse words to ridicule this guy any different from someone saying you’re an asshole for dragging RSS into a bug report about CSS?
Comment by Dave Winer — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 5:20 pm
It’s a coincidence that almost the exact same thing happened on my blog last night: a long time reader of mine returned (after my six month blog exile due to life interfering) to tell me my new writings were a “snooze” and I should haul my sorry ass out and do something interesting so I could write about it.
And I don’t know whether it was that she hit a nerve (I’ve been feeling sort of sorry for myself: new city, father’s illness, etc.) or that being a girl, I just take criticism differently, but I was all like “You’re right! Mea culpa! I’ll try and do better!”
Reading your post this morning gave me some backbone and a little righteous anger, so thank you very much. Muchas gracias.
Comment by liz — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 5:49 pm
I had a website until a couple years ago when I just no longer had time or interest for it. I remember getting a few e-mails complaining to me about what I felt like saying or putting on my site, and I remember laughing at them. It was ridiculous. Do they have any clue at all about what the net’s all about?
To me it’s akin to walking into McDonalds and saying something like “I don’t like that you don’t have the shamrock shake everyday, so I’m not coming back here ever again”.
Comment by Devon — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 6:17 pm
“To me it’s akin to walking into McDonalds and saying something like “I don’t like that you don’t have the shamrock shake everyday, so I’m not coming back here ever again”.”
I don’t think that’s a good analogy. If enough people complained, they *would* add the Shamrock Shake to the menu. Its a simple matter of making $$$.
This is different from a personal website that generates zero income, as all the complaining in the world might make no difference.
For a website that does rely on traffic as a revenue stream, it might, indeed, make a difference.
Comment by MikeyC — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 6:39 pm
Dave says:
“Mark, straight question—how is your using Spanish curse words to ridicule this guy any different from someone saying you’re an asshole for dragging RSS into a bug report about CSS?”
Ooh. You don’t miss a trick do you, Dave?
On the subject of Saul’s comment to Sam, I think that it is extraordinary. If anyone told ME what to write in my weblog I’d likely bar their IP address. As the English say, “cheeky sod!”
Comment by Simon Jessey — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 9:43 pm
Hah. This reminds me of recently when someone posted to my blog to tell me he wasn’t coming back because of my supposed overwhelming negativity.
The point being… I care about his readership, why, exactly?
http://illuminosity.net/thoughts/comments/2003/June/04/13:04:56/#comment-2003-06-08-16:57:06
Comment by Lach — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 10:11 pm
Saul: “Granted it’s your right to post whatever you want - I’m certainly not trying to tell you what to post.”
Simon: “On the subject of Saul’s comment to Sam, I think that it is extraordinary. If anyone told ME what to write in my weblog I’d likely bar their IP address.”
Is anyone actually *reading* Saul’s comment? Don’t think so.
Comment by MikeyC — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 10:41 pm
Dave: you are so incredibly missing the point here. Read the post that the curses link to. It has nothing to do with cursing *at* anyone, it’s about the freedom to curse at all, on your own turf.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fuck+site:scriptingnews.userland.com
Comment by Mark — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 11:53 pm
MikeyC: I read it. I read it three times, because I didn’t believe anyone smart enough to read Sam’s site could be stupid enough to say things like “cut back on the crap about your personal life.” You know, ’cause whatdya think this is, a personal site? You exist for my edification. Mine, you hear me? Mine. Mine. Mine.
Anyone here seen “Finding Nemo”? “Mine… mine… mine… mine…”
Comment by Mark — Sunday, June 22, 2003 @ 11:57 pm
“cut back on the crap about your personal life.”
Mark, in my original post (#2) I rasied issue about the exact same thing. I thought calling his personal like “crap” was going too far.
However, your response about an author having no obligation to his readers (which I have no issue with) didn’t seem relevant given that Saul’s comment states “it’s your right to post whatever you want - I’m certainly not trying to tell you what to post”.
He was simply saying, “this is the reason why I’m unsubscribing from your blog” and offering up advice which Sam could either take or leave. I really don’t see where all the outrage comes from. Most of the posts thus far are hysterical rants about “users having no right to complain about free content” and that users who don’t like the content of a blog can “simply choose to not read the blog” - which is exactly what Saul was saying he planned on doing!?!
Comment by MikeyC — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 12:17 am
I think what’s most offensive about that comment is the tone. We all have different reasons for blogging, I suspect some bloggers do care about keeping an audience, and we shouldn’t all be so thin skinned that we can’t accept some constructive criticism.
But sometimes in being ‘helpful’ people forget to be polite. Now, I may be showing how naive I am, but, regardless of whether we’re talking about online or offline communication, I expect to be communicated with in a respectful manner. Call me weird, but that’s me.
If Saul really meant to offer constructive advice he should have given the wording of his message a little more thought. As it stands, his advice is lost among all the rudeness.
And, I have to wonder why he believes Sam would care about losing him as a reader when he himself doesn’t seem to much care about Sam? Oops. Sorry. I forgot … I’m talking about the internet. We don’t do the feeling thing around here. My mistake.
Comment by Patricia — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 2:48 am
Mark - you’re a star. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had people writing in to say that either I’m boring them with the personal stuff on my site or I’m boring them on the technical stuff on my site. It’s always, “I love X, but I don’t really want to read about Y”. The problem with these e-mails is that they can never agree about what the good stuff is and what should be abandoned. Universally these people think I write with no other intention than to give them the benefit of my expertise (for nothing) in the one area that they’re interested in. My interests be damned…
Our weblogs are representations of ourselves in cyberspace. They are mostly not professional ventures with potential revenus - we have no obligation to maximise traffic for ourselves because there’s no corresponding increase in revenue. For these reasons we have no need to determine one demographic and target them precisely. There’s an aspect of weblog writing which is to reveal oneself - one’s interests and passions - in order to meet and connect with other people who share some or all of those passions. If we self-censor to the extent that we’re nothing but audience-satisfying machines then the thin cord that separates online self from offline self is severed. Our sites become costumes that we wear - betrayals of ourselves - and we’ll never connect with other people on that basis.
And after all, we all write with a full view of the consequences - if people find us boring they go away, if they like what we write they stay. All of us can check our stats on any given day and see precisely how many people think we’re interesting and if we want to we can change our ways. But god knows it’s not our responsibility to do so!
Comment by Tom Coates — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 8:04 am
Just wanted to chime in and say I totally agree. From time to time, I ask my reader what they think about my style and try to solicit feedback, but I want feedback in the form of a discussion when I am thinking about my style, not randomly or from people who aren’t participants in my “community.”
Comment by Joi Ito — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 9:39 am
adding weblog metadata — like ENT, easy news topics, for RSS
along with an aggregator that understands it — myRadio for RU
does solve this problem…
Comment by mikel — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 10:37 am
Jeebus. MikeyC, you must have worked for (and been brainwashed by) Customer Service before, because you actually believe besides the “crap” comment that Saul’s words were legitimate.
As a person who HAS worked in that service before, this is worded almost exactly like an irate customer complaint who contradicts himself — he says post whatever you want, but tells you exactly what to post (cut down on the personal life). He uses offending words like “freaking… crap…” and then cites another blog (Chris) as a comparison. It’s no different from someone complaining about, say, furniture, and going to one store and telling the Sales Rep that he’s taking their business elsewhere because the other furniture in the other store is cheaper/better/doesn’t speak about its personal life.
Ah, gimme a break. It’s like people who ask to censor TV. For God’s sake, just change the channel.
Comment by Lea — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 11:46 am
it seems that blog authors voluntarily take on at least some obligation to the readers. standards compliance is an easy example.
it is generally agreed that standards compliance benefits the whole community, so it is accepted by many blog authors (including mark) as worth the work.
interactions on a personal level are harder to quantify, but i wonder if the whole community wouldn’t benefit from some sort of code between the author and reader.
Comment by sleeper — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 12:28 pm
re: “some sort of code between the author and reader”
All right, here’s my code:
I get to say whatever I want on my own turf, and suffer the consequences all by myself, including you ignoring me. If you don’t like that, you get to go start your own weblog and say whatever you want on your own turf, and suffer the consequences all by yourself, including me ignoring you.
Comment by Mark — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 1:02 pm
re: “here’s my code:”
allow me to suffix my last statement by saying that the first violation of that code could very well be the pervasive attitude of Saul’s comment.
you have an excellent point in that there are very definate things that the readers just don’t (and shouldn’t) get to control. but what type of response will most effectively silence dissenting voices, and communicate the reader’s proper role not only to the dissenter, but the general community?
it’s possible these incidents aren’t avoidable and the best way to deal with them is to behead the ignorants involved, but i wish for something else.
Comment by sleeper — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 1:51 pm
Mark,
Wouldn’t you (at least in theory) want to be informed of those consequences? Assuming of course that they weren’t freaking obvious.
Some criticism *is* constructive, after all.
Comment by Michael Bernstein — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 4:33 pm
“You don’t ask an artist to change his vision just so that you’ll sell more copies.”
http://www.thedevilsadvocate.org/archives/000067.html
(sorry for the link, I have no idea how to use trackback or that other cute stuff people use in comments right now)
Comment by Adrian — Monday, June 23, 2003 @ 5:58 pm
Mark, what’s about usability aspects? You placed the navigation elements for previous, home, und next entry at the bottom of your pages. I don’t know whether I am able to tolerate such an usability lack any longer ;-)
Comment by Gerald — Tuesday, June 24, 2003 @ 8:02 am
Michael: absolutely, I’m all for constructive criticism. Heck, over on my fledgling Spanish blog ( http://es.diveintomark.org/ ), I have people *correcting my grammar* every day. Now *that’s* humbling (and constructive).
Saul’s comment, on the other hand, is just pointless. It boils down to “be more interesting” (more interesting to me, specifically). That’s the blog equivalent of someone standing behind you in the arcade saying “move faster, shoot better.” Dude, here’s a quarter, get a life.
Comment by Mark — Tuesday, June 24, 2003 @ 2:53 pm
“Saul’s comment, on the other hand, is just pointless. It boils down to “be more interesting” (more interesting to me, specifically).”
My apologies for beating a dead horse but Saul was not saying, “be more interesting to me” but that he was “no longer going to read Sam’s blog because he doesn’t find what Sam has to say interesting.”
Maybe we are dealing with subtle semantics here, and maybe his comment was just a thinly veiled threat to “be more interesting - or else!” but I just happen to see it differently.
Comment by MikeyC — Tuesday, June 24, 2003 @ 4:43 pm
Mark, I fully agree with your postings about your life. A blog is not only a technical insight magazine, editorialized, homogenized and pasteurized, but an account of a person that creates connections with other people - we read as much about a person’s life as about their particular prowess at any endeavor, and thus we give more attention to their words - that person becoming real.
Besides that, I am a little voyeur.
Comment by camilo — Wednesday, June 25, 2003 @ 10:09 am
Just wanted to add my comment to the chorus. I came here originally, and added this site to my daily checklist for the personal content, not the technical. While I have developed an interest in Python as a result of reading this site, its the personal stuff, esp. about addiction that I find engrossing.
Comment by Wotan — Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 5:57 pm
Let me just add to the list of those who say, Mark, thanks for all the really cool things you write, and even for the things that I might not personally care about, but others might. Anyone who wants their money back, so be it.
Comment by Mike Wasylik — Saturday, June 28, 2003 @ 5:09 pm