Thus, maybe it *would* be a good time for the blog-reviewers themselves to set some standards. And no, there really isnâ€™t anything wrong with that, because what that allows is progress based on common vocabulary. Thatâ€™s a hallmark of any important issue/discussion.
By setting this kind of standard, I think that you can free yourself from feeling any guilt, or worry, about writing whatever you want. Just call it what it is. Itâ€™s actually kind of a simple solution. A lot simpler than trying to re-define what a review is, which is a pretty slippery slope. One I donâ€™t think needs to be taken.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Robert’s argument, the ideas he suggest and the repercussions it could/would have on the blogosphere. I’ll admit that the argument is well founded; our entire civilization is founded on the idea of having a sustainable set of standards by which humans should live. It’s called a government; but as we all know, a government (no matter what country you live in), while generally a good thing, is hardly perfect.
What Robert’s suggesting could bring some order to the blogosphere, of course, but I can’t help but feel that it would also leech out much of the life and vivaciousness, two of the major factors that make blogs such an organic and exciting medium as compared to other forms of mass media. There’s been much todo about bloggers developing or ‘finding’ their voice, something that sets them apart from others and makes their blog worth picking out from the mass and subscribing to. Any set of standards, no matter how positive they may be in another light, would stilt the bloggers ability to add their own flavour to the blog.