That's an interesting theory -- that links beget links and that by NOT have a more diverse "link portfolio", we are creating these unseen, unheard subgroups. I hate that that's happening.

I mostly link to people that I like. I don't care if they're gay, childless, urban, professional -- I just link to writers I like. My blogroll could be a little more diverse, though. I have very few men on my blogroll. That's not by design, although I don't care for most of the more political blogs, most of the men's blogs that I happen across are political. I think that Blogging Across Boundaries is a great idea. I hope it brings new people together, and I hope that it makes our lives that much richer.

There are a lot of factors that affect a blog's popularity, but certainly there is a snowball effect - to those who have [readers] more shall be given.

There are lots of reasons for that Shirky/snowball effect, several of which you have enumerated here. The more often I see a name mentioned, the more likely I am to click over and try a blog out (after all, if everybody is reading it, it must be good, right?). And many of the popular blogs ARE very good (though not necessarily better than many of the lesser-read blogs).

There are also certain self-serving motives for commenting on the biggie blogs - it's like free advertising for your OWN blog, and if that big blogger ever actually permalinks you, that could really generate some readership. On the other hand, a big blogger is probably less likely to return the visit, whereas us small-timers are always eager to check out who's commenting.

In some ways, I discriminate AGAINST the really popular blogs. I'm less likely to comment, and I'm more willing to remove a big blogger's name from my blogroll (figuring there's no way she'll notice).

I'm not sure yet how I feel about the idea of inclusivity in blogrolling. I did actually add a new name to my blogroll in response to your previous post on this topic, though I would not have wanted to make a big deal out of it or to single that person out for special attention - "Look! You get to represent a new demographic on my blogroll!"

I guess I wonder how to distinguish the boundaries of this kind of initiative. To what extent is it legitimate to base one's blog-reading habits on subject matter, for instance? How do we articulate the difference between a choice not to read a political blog, let's say, vs. the choice not to read a blog that primarily discusses treatment options for a particular disorder that lies outside the reader's experience? Is it enough to ensure that one does not avoid a blog one would otherwise enjoy simply because of factors like race, gender, or sexual orientation? Or does one have a responsibility to expend one's interests to include broader content? And where does that responsibility end?

Lots of stuff to think about, as always, Andrea.

I find these posts really interesting and thought-provoking, but have nothing interesting to add to the discussion. You rock, Andrea.

"I did actually add a new name to my blogroll in response to your previous post on this topic, though I would not have wanted to make a big deal out of it or to single that person out for special attention - "Look! You get to represent a new demographic on my blogroll!""

ROFL--ah, no. That probably is not the best way to do it, eh?

...I think the tokenism question is important (and I think that's what you're getting at). For instance, I'd hate to be someone's Token SNM Blogger, or Token Feminist Blogger. On the other hand, I'd hate it hate it HATE IT if they were regularly reading and enjoying it and not linking only because I was a SNM blogger and felt they didn't belong here. If that makes sense. And I am thinking about this, but this post was already long enough. So, another week, you lucky people!

And those are excellent questions. I'm going to ignore most of them because I htink they are more complicated than could be covered in a comment, but I'll say to the last one, yes, I think in some instances we have a duty to broaden our interests. Or at the very least to question the extent to which our interests are freely chosen or reflective of the kinds of people we want to be and the kind of world we want to live in, vs. shaped by the preferences and prejudices of our society. That is, I don't feel badly ignoring the political blogs, because they receive a lot of societal validation already and I am fairly sure that my ignoring them is not the result of having been programmed to think that mainstream politics are irrelevant, because there is not a single force in society that would lead me to think that way. On the other hand, if I am ignoring blogs written about disablism, for instance, or racism--to what extent is that because of my actual preferences vs. the messages society constantly sends out about what is valuable discourse and what isn't? And if it's the latter, then yes, I think we have an obligation to broaden those interests.

Does that make sense? I know I'm coming back to this later....

I think you're taking a dramatic position on something that is not necessarily a dramatic issue. Links may beget links, but the easiest way to get links is to make them yourself - leave comments on other blogs.

If nobody is reading your blog (in this case I am using the english word "you" to mean the french "on"), it is not necessarily because the demons of descrimination (or statistics) are conspiring against bloggers in marginalized circumstances. It doesn't even mean that people are so small-minded that it doesn't occur to them to read a blog that hasn't been recommended by somebody else. If nobody finds their way to your page, nobody can't read it, there is nothing sinister about it at all. If you actively participate in the blogs you read, other participants will inevitably find you.

I came to your blog (this time I am using "you" to mean "you, the person I am addressing") from a comment you left on alittlepregnant, and I have been reading it ever since. I have found other interesting blogs by following links from thoughtful comments. Sometimes I follow links from blogrolls, sometimes I follow inline links to blogs or blog entries that are mentioned in posts. Sometimes, when I am looking for blogs about a specific subject, I visit blogging communities and web rings devoted to that subject.

As far as I understand, everybody has a different attitude about their own blogroll. Somebody may indeed use it to display links to interesting sites that their visitors may not find otherwise. Somebody else might see it as a chance to exhibit their personal flair, kind of like a bumper sticker - these blogrolls will have links that are selected to say something about the blog's owner and their personal taste, even if their taste happens to be for white bread. If I were to maintain a blog, I would probably have a blogroll selected from a utilitarian standpoint, with links to sites that I need to access frequently myself. It would exist for my convenience.

To extend your book analogy, a bookshelf in the living room can serve many different functions, depending on the wishes and personality of the house owner. Some owners might display the latest interesting books they have read, hoping to share something new with their guests. Some might have shelves filled with traditionally valued favourites, even though Dickens and Proust really don't need the endorsement. And somebody else might prefer to keep a bookshelf filled with those books for which they reach frequently, and don't give a second thought to what their books announce about their taste and personality, or to enlightening their guests.

And what do you mean "who gets to decide what's good"? If I build a website, and devote space on my sidebar to "sites which I think are good" - I get to decide.

You might be interested in a recent post by Trillwing, who complained that there aren't more women academics posting about history:
http://cluttermuseum.blogspot.com/2006/08/anonymous-academics-history-bloggers.html

It would seem this is not just a mommyblogger phenomenon.

aelial, I appreciate your points--and they're good points--and I'm not proposing a conspiracy (anymore than I think there is a conspiracy to prevent women from being CEOs)--but the number of referrals I actually get from comments is a tiny, tiny percentage of the daily total. Maybe about 5%, probably less. It's much, much less than I get from blogroll links. So I'm not sure the comment-and-they'll-find-you model actually explains much--it doesn't in my experience.

YOu're right that public bookshelves serve a multitude of purposes--but generally speaking people won't put books there that they actively don't want other people to know that they read. I mean, if you have a taste for exotic erotica, it might not be in the living room--or it might, and that could say a lot about how you view sex. It could also say that you don't care what other people think, but I bet that's rare. (And it makes me wonder if there are a few hundred extremely popular sex blogs out there that have no blogroll links whatsoever from outside the sexblog community.)

Blogroll links do indeed have a variety of purposes, but in the literature I've read so far, the most common is to drum up recognition--link to a bigger blog and hope they'll link back to you. (That's obviously not something I do, if you've ever looked at my blogroll, but it's the assumption in most of the analyses.)

I think the "what's good" thing deserves its own post, so I'll get to that later.

Thanks for your comments--I always appreciate a well-thought-out and respectful disagreement.

Jennifer, I'd be shocked if it was.

I didn't realize that people put links on their blogroll hoping that the linkee would return the favor. I thought that (like you do) people put links in their blogroll based on their readership. So for example Quinn the Brain recently commented on a couple of my posts, and so I added her to my blogroll. Partly because I think I ought to read her stuff, if she's reading mine, and partly out of respect.

There is at least one "bigger blogger" who I link to and often comment at, and she has never linked to me or responded to any of my comments. It's interesting. Makes me feel like what I write about must be stupid or insignificant (in her mind).

Also, regarding the use of blogrolls as advertising: I would think that in-post shout-outs would be more effective. So a person hoping to get more traffic should focus on getting a mention & a link in an actual post, rather than getting on a blogroll. It's more limited in duration of course (since blogrolls appear with every new post but old posts get stuck in the archives) but I'd think they'd have a higher click-through rate.

I am a much smaller blogger than you : ) but most of my click-throughs come from search engines, esp. Google. A tiny tiny %age come from blogroll links.

Jennifer, it's interesting you mention that. From what I've read so far, permalinks (the in-post shout-outs) are considered by some to be more potentially meaningful. The logic being: what's on your blogroll is what you want people to think you read, but maybe you never actually do; vs. linking to a specific entry is an indication that you actually do read it and find it thought-provoking (whether you agree or disagree). Interestingly, the folks who wrote that article found that ranks by blogroll links vs. ranks by permalinks were similar, but not the same. There were quite a few blogs that had lots of incoming blogroll links and not very many incoming permalinks at all. (Their analysis focused on political blogs, I think, so I'm not sure how applicable it is to the momosphere.)

This is an interesting idea; I also like that by expanding one's blogroll, one may end up expanding one's reading list as well as expanding those of others. I also think you raise interesting points, bubandpie, especially since identity factors such as race/gender/age/sexual orientation/disability status/etc. often influence content in blogs (and elsewhere). If someone doesn't link to any blogs about those in rural areas, is it something against those who live in rural areas or simply a lack of interest in that subject? And could the lack of interest be caused by a devaluing or marginalizing of that experience, or at least a lack of understanding? This is something I question since so many people immediately dismiss the rural perspective and say to me "well, you're different, you got out" but they don't understand the particulars of why that rural perspective is important and how it influences those who are not from the area or no longer live there.

Also, a sort of newbie-blogger question, is it in general considered polite to ask someone prior to putting them on your blog roll? Your last paragraph seems to imply this isn't necessary, but I just wanted to check, as I'm in the process of creating a blogroll... thanks!

I think that Jennifer takes the position that many of us do -- we have a person who comments on our blog, so we throw up a link to them. Like she says, it's partly out of respect that they've taken the time to come and comment at our space, but also it's almost like it's the polite thing to do. If someone has bothered themselves enough to come over and visit and hang out a bit, we make them feel welcome by inviting them to come back again and again via the link.

I too, feel slightly anxious when someome that I have visited and commented to does not seem to take the time to come and reciprocate. You have to remember, though, that you can only gauge your traffic by those who leave responses. We have no way of knowing exactly how many people visit and never say word one. There's only so much that sites like Technorati and Sitemeter can tell us. I would love for those lurkers to come out and let us know that they are there, if for no other reason that they can say -- "hey, I liked what you had to say about Issue X."

I appreciate your take on this, and many of the issues you raise here. There's a lot of great food for thought. But I have to say, Alicia sounds like a bonehead, Beatrice can't think for herself, and if Cathy can't find other lesbian adoption blogs she's not looking very hard. I know I'm being a tad facetious, but I think these examples are the exception rather than the rule.

I've said it before - people read what interests them. Period. You can't change someone's interests. I do my best to link to lesser read blogs whenever I can. I've awarded Perfect Post Awards to people who get one comment a day. And maybe their stats go up for a week...and then down again. That writer may have connected with me, but not my readers. The only thing that can change that fact is the content of that blog itself. Not one link. Not one hundred links.

It's like dating--Chemistry is elusive. You like what you like.

There's indeed truth in your point that people read writers with similar circumstances to their own -- but isn't that really what is so wonderful about the internet? It's a good thing. A GREAT thing! You are not limited to the common denominator perspective of the mass media. You can drill down enough to find exactly what you're looking for. It's a place where everyone has a soapbox, everyone has the potential for an audience, everyone is entitled to speak his or her piece.

Honest, I wasn't taking it personally, until you addressed me by name :-)(I'm not the most extroverted person in the world).

I think the thing about this that I struggle with most is that I worry that my genuine interest in other people different to me could be seen as or maybe is voyeurism.

So for me, it's actually a concern I have about myself. But based on this - a feedback from an actual person, I'll try and change my behaviour and comment in places I read.

Apologies for putting my insecurities in your comments - but you asked...

My blogroll is based on my bloglines feed, by the way, because I'm lazy, but there are a few blogs that I look at every now and again, and because of my own insecurities, they tend to be the less mainstream ones.

Anyway, I'm such a small and insignificant blogger that I find it hard to imagine my blogroll actually matters!

Oh god, sorry Jennifer, I'll take it out. That was not the effect I intended.

You can put your insecurities anywhere you'd like.

Mom101, I agree, I think they are the exception. I think, though, that for a power law function, very very small differences, very very small influences, end up amplified and create huge effects. So you could have, say, 1000 regular people and 2 boneheads, and over time, the influence of the two boneheads is amplified and creates an unequal system. I mean, the power law distribution of blogs (for links of all kinds, readers, etc.) is real. It has to be explained somehow. Shirky's Law basically states that people are influenced by other people's choices--and you don't have to look far in any realm, on or offline, to see that it's true. My addition to it is only that not everyone's choices are innocent or free of prejudice, even when people have the best of intentions.

And no, I can't change *your* interests, but I can change *mine*--and I think if I notice that my interests have been shaped by cultural prejudices more than I'd like, then I should. In the same way, for instance, that if you notice almost all of your cds are by men, it might be a good idea to try listening to music by women and see what you've been missing. (Btw, off topic but interesting--when I read several years back about how women are still a minority in popular music, I tried counting songs on the 3 top radio stations in TO, and I found that on each one male singers outnumbered female by a huge margin--ratios of anywhere from 1:7 to 1:11. I mean, HUGE. And the funny thing was, until I counted it, I never noticed.)

KLee, I have an advantage--a webhost with a stats program. I know exactly how many visitors and page hits I'm getting, even on the feeds, which is nice. You're right, though, it's not the same number as sitemeter will give you.

You know, I wonder if bloggers--being bloggers, and knowing how much comments and links can matter--are more likely to participate than non-bloggers? Those of us who participate in the medium, in other words, are more likely to participate in many ways; whereas perhaps people who don't participate in the medium are more likely to passively view it as entertainment.

Which makes sense.

epi--that is exactly it! Exactly! Fabulous example. Thank you.

On blogrolls, when I started, I always asked b/c I felt nervous about it. Now I don't, and no one has ever complained (they can see them b/c of technorati and sitemeter, so it's not like they don't know). I've never yet met anyone who didn't view it as a compliment. That said, everyone I asked was fine with being asked, too, so I think you can do pretty much whatever makes you comfortable.

I don't have an issue with linking to people who are different from me - and I have a BIG blogroll. I do feel like - and this is going to sound unbearably snobby - I am in essence saying "I approve of this blog" by linking to it. And if that blog has millions of mispellings and uses LOL!!!!!!! all the time and has gazillions of blinkies and tickers and mentions angels, or worse, has pop-ups, and it makes me, snotty middle-class me, cringe from time to time to read it, then I'm probably not going to link to it. And yes, part of that is because I'm thinking about how I - or my online me - will be perceived by having sent someone to that blog. Do you hate me now?

Note: If you're reading this comment and I haven't linked to you, I'm also just lazy as sin.

LOL I don't hate you!

No, I think that links are probably interpreted that way at least partly by most people--"I like this!"

But I'm trying to get over the cringe thing, since I know that at least part of the time I'm reacting that way, it's not to the content but to the style, and style is usually a function of class ... so ....

No, I wasn't taking offense - I knew I couldn't get a wry comment over in text! Don't worry...