We've gained five new Blogpowerers: Guthrum, Crushed by Ingsoc, Ruthie Zaftig, Lord Nazh and now Calum. This is great stuff and more than one commenter has noted the calibre of the bloggers who have arrived.
However, for every action, there is an eqal and opposite ... etc.
I very much fear that a few of our blogs have gone dormant. Or have died. One of our members garnered much sympathy and it's understandable why he's not blogging but at what point does a blog become 'dead'?
Should we keep that blog on the roll?
However, for every action, there is an eqal and opposite ... etc.
I very much fear that a few of our blogs have gone dormant. Or have died. One of our members garnered much sympathy and it's understandable why he's not blogging but at what point does a blog become 'dead'?
Should we keep that blog on the roll?
10 comments:
I'd say 2 months without a post (and no contact by email) and the blog would be considered dead.
Of course the people that get dropped could always come back :)
I think Lord Nazh is close. Two months without posting and no contact or reason probably confirms blogdeath. However, one must also consider if a truly dormant blog – blogger definitely returning – should be temporarily removed from the blogroll after 1 or 2 months. Mind you, what do I know - I haven't even been blogging two months.
As the newest Blogpower member, I believe that there may be a delay of a few days before my blog appears on the blogroll. Until then, members may find me at http://www.calumcarr.blogspot.com/ where I have just posted – “Virginia Tech – Old Thoughts Remembered”.
Finally, I hope Bel isn’t disappointed in my contributions.
Regards
Calum
Two months sounds about right. People can always ask to be reinstated if they want.
I agree. If they still want to blog after 2 months and be with us again they can always rejoin.
In light of the circumstances to which James alludes, I would urge that we consider a two-month cut-off as a guideline around which discretion can be used, rather than a hard-and-fast rule. The latter would, to me at least, seem to sit uncomfortably with the ethos of flexibility that has developed within Blogpower.
Calum, and everyone, I try and add new arrivals to the roll as soon as I can, it's just that real life will occasionally insist on getting in the way...
I would say three months (& two ignored reminders within the last month).
However, if someone chose to have a six month sabbatical- but told us about it, then they should stay up though.
Yes Ian [Grey] - if they told us.
Why not put them on a 'Resting" roll and then if that doesn't fire them up, they are slipped off and then could rejoin whenever they wished?
Ian [Appleby] - yes, Calum, it takes us a little while. We're working and we are a fairly amateurish outfit.
I see that you're in there though now - good.
Presume Ian will do a post on this.
Agreed - two months is a good standard. The q is, when it gets there, do we bombard the writer with emails asking how they are, as a good bunch of chums should, or do we just let them go?
The emails asking how/what they are doing should start at 1 month ... when the 2 month cut date is hit, the answer should already be known.
And this isn't like capital punishment, a simple post/comment or email could get them back on :)
I'd say somewhere between two and three months without posting.
I like the idea of a 'Resting' blogroll, where blogs which aren't posted on for two or three months are put, and only removed completely after six months with no posts.
Of course excluding known sabbaticals.
Post a Comment