I’ll never stay to say happy anniversary
One year ago today I made my first post to Investigations of a Dog. Although there were some slow periods earlier this year I’ve kept it going for a whole year, and it should be easier to carry on now that I’ve got some other distractions out of the way (and failed to get a job!). I posted some reflections on blogging after 6 months, and things haven’t changed too much since then. I’ve slipped from 3rd to 4th place in Brett Holman’s ranking of military history blogs, and since September my Technorati rank has gone down to 140,824 despite increased frequency of posting.
Although I posted a lot in September it was mostly on one quite esoteric topic: the historiography of the English/British Civil War(s)/Revolution/Whatever. This series of posts is a new departure as it’s based on the background reading for an article I’m writing and is meant more for my own reference than for the entertainment of anyone else. Strangely one of these posts attracted the first really negative reaction to my blogging as some anti-intellectuals at another blog described it as “academic nonsense”. I wasn’t really sure what to make of this incident. If I was Tim Burke I could have made a reasonable and thoughtful post about the gap between academic and non-academic cultures. If I was Adam Kotsko I could have revelled in the prospect of a vicious flame war. As it was I just ignored it.
At the 6 month point I’d just started the Military History Carnival. I wondered if it would die after the initial enthusiasm wore off but it’s now been going for 7 editions and I have hosts lined up into next year. The only potential worry is that the number of submissions is often disappointing but I think that’s a problem with carnivals in general. With regular calls for posts at History Carnivals Aggregator, Cliopatria and Blog Them Out of the Stone Age, as well as here and the host blogs, it’s hard to see how publicity could be much better. Worries that we might be swamped with American Civil War posts turned out to be unfounded to the extent that I’m wondering how we can encourage more participation from ACW bloggers, who dominate the military history blogosphere.
Comment by Brett — 6:05 am, 17 October 2007 [permanent link to this comment]
Congrats on making it to a year!
I wouldn’t worry too much about Technorati rankings. I noticed that a few weeks after I posted those ranks, they all dropped by several tens of thousands of places. Mine went down 30000 or so, though it’s recovered a bit since the carnival went up. Technorati either adjusted their algorithm or had a huge influx of new highly-ranked blogs (quite possibly splogs too: they seem to link to each other to improve their TR).
I was also wondering about the lack of ACW submissions. I didn’t really twig to it until too late or else I would have looked a bit harder for some more. Of course, there weren’t a lot of submissions total so that may not mean anything much. But I wonder if the majority of ACW bloggers just aren’t interested in military history generally, in the same way many Wagner fans aren’t interested in any other operas?
Comment by Gary Smailes — 6:41 am, 17 October 2007 [permanent link to this comment]
I have been blogging for a similar period of time and with similar bursts of enthusiasm. I have learned a lot over the past year or so. Here’s a couple of things that have struck me:
1. It is better to post regularly with good solid writing, than break your back trying to blog rubbish every day,
2. The number of readers doesn’t matter as long as you are being read by your target audience, this is especially true for a history blog,
3. Commenting is king, if you read a good blog then leave a comment,
4. Never underestimate the power of the blog. You never know who is reading!
Comment by Mel — 7:08 am, 17 October 2007 [permanent link to this comment]
Hi
How do I contact the author of this blog ? (I prefer this isn’t published !)
Comment by Gavin Robinson — 11:42 am, 17 October 2007 [permanent link to this comment]
That sounds scary! There’s a mailform here.