I did offer to put in the blog name instead of the author's name because that is a switch I could make, but the person I was talking to didn't like that idea in the slightest. I got a little ticked with that particular person because they seemed to think that there would be no extra work involved in providing all of the information they wanted.
Somebody else, a while back, suggested that we simply paste in the url twice, once for the html link and once in plaintext so that people can see where it's going, and I could do that without much trouble, too. It would look dreadful, but I could do it. I just don't know if people would prefer that.
I have the impression that Lady Geek Girl and The Daily Dot are the websites people are most concerned about identifying before clicking. I haven't decided, but we might drop The Daily Dot, The Mary Sue, and Fangs for the Fantasy at least until we have someone else to help with blogs. I haven't done Fangs for the Fantasy this week at all, and I'm not sure I'm going to. I feel torn about that site because I don't think the meta in their posts is all that great, but, at the same time, they post about shows that nobody else is talking about at all. The Daily Dot and The Mary Sue are very high volume in terms of number of posts and fairly low volume in terms of the relative number of meta posts (also their meta often isn't very deep), so I have to put in a lot of time on them with not much result.
I want to keep Lady Geek Girl because, regardless of the ideology or the tone of the posts, the site does reliably produce long articles that are clearly meta. We don't judge meta by whether or not we agree with it or by whether or not we like the people posting it. (The one exception was my refusal to track down Sad or Rabid Puppy posts for the Hugo Awards business. I draw the line well before Vox Day.)
no subject
Somebody else, a while back, suggested that we simply paste in the url twice, once for the html link and once in plaintext so that people can see where it's going, and I could do that without much trouble, too. It would look dreadful, but I could do it. I just don't know if people would prefer that.
I have the impression that Lady Geek Girl and The Daily Dot are the websites people are most concerned about identifying before clicking. I haven't decided, but we might drop The Daily Dot, The Mary Sue, and Fangs for the Fantasy at least until we have someone else to help with blogs. I haven't done Fangs for the Fantasy this week at all, and I'm not sure I'm going to. I feel torn about that site because I don't think the meta in their posts is all that great, but, at the same time, they post about shows that nobody else is talking about at all. The Daily Dot and The Mary Sue are very high volume in terms of number of posts and fairly low volume in terms of the relative number of meta posts (also their meta often isn't very deep), so I have to put in a lot of time on them with not much result.
I want to keep Lady Geek Girl because, regardless of the ideology or the tone of the posts, the site does reliably produce long articles that are clearly meta. We don't judge meta by whether or not we agree with it or by whether or not we like the people posting it. (The one exception was my refusal to track down Sad or Rabid Puppy posts for the Hugo Awards business. I draw the line well before Vox Day.)