Last week I pointed to a post by a blogger in Bangalore called Jace called “What is Metroblogging?” He spent some serious time looking at (at least a few of) our sites and wrote a pretty detailed review of what he thinks we’re doing right, what we’re doing wrong, and how we could improve on it. My initial reaction was that while Jace had clearly spent a good deal of time on this post and offered some very thoughtful suggestions, he was missing some of the core of what we are doing which unfortunately skewed a lot of what he was getting at. (It’s worth noting that at least one of his concerns, about how comments are handed, is a criticism more of how blogging software works in general and not something Metroblogging is doing specifically, perhaps those thoughts would have been better fitting in a post called “What is MoveableType?” - more about that in the comments on his site)
Right away I sent it off to our authors to get their take on it. I asked them if they had any comments on it to either post them there or e-mail them to me directly. Now with 34 comments the post looks to be the most active on his site, and needless to say my inbox has been full of discussion about this ever since. I’ve been thinking a lot about how to respond, because I really do appreciate that he took the time to look at and write about us, at the same time some of the things he’s calling problems I think are our strengths. This isn’t a new issue, often the criticism we hear is people complaining that we’re not doing something that we’re not trying to do in the first place. This usually comes in the form of anonymous snippy comments and is just ignored, but Jace was taking a more straightforward approach and that deserved something better in return, I thought.
As I was thinking about his specific points, and considering writing a post on each of them, I was thinking that a longwinded reply arguing minutia probably wouldn’t be read by anyone, and the little things aren’t that important anyway. His post was called “What is Metroblogging?” which implies a larger, more sweeping question, so a more general answer seems more fitting. I was going to write about how we’re not called metroBLOGGING for nothing, and that the blog aspect of what we’re doing is front and center always. We’re not metroNEWS or metroEVENTS and we’re certainly not metroHIVEMIND. People are the important part of blogs, and that is something we’ve always felt was an important part of Metblogs. As I was writing this I kept referencing comments or e-mails from our authors and thought that perhaps this might paint a better picture. I’ve tried to decentralize a lot of things from day one, so maybe the answer of what we are should come from the people who actually make us what we are. One thing a lot of people, myself included, latched onto was his comment about an author who lost their umbrella. This is a key point of contention in his post, and something the authors seem to really pick up on. Jace wrote:
“…the result is akin to putting the team in a glass cage, where they make an exhibit of themselves along with their words. That it rained in your favourite city may be welcome news, but that your poster lost his umbrella in the process of arriving home to file the report is unwanted clutter. It may serve to strengthen the poster’s identity, but that identity is swamped by the overall bulk of Metblogs, and as such, is only accessible to dedicated readers, the kind who regularly visit the comments section.
…
“This is why being informed that your poster lost his umbrella is irritating. It is of little consequence to the supposed topic at hand, the city itself. Such detail belongs in the poster’s personal journal, where readers gather more for who the poster is than for what is being said.”
Personally I like reading about the lost umbrella. It’s the kind of thing would never see in your local newspaper or on the evening news, and offers something unique to blogging in general. Tiffany from Metroblogging DC agrees with her comment:
“I think I disagree with the idea that details such as the blogger losing his umbrella on the way home are universally annoying. The Metroblogging “brand,” if you will, has never been predicated around being a dispassionate observation of “news” in the city. If that’s all we were, we’d be Gothamist. And there’s nothing wrong with Gothamist, but they have their editorial voice, and we have ours. And ours has been about what it means to be a person LIVING in the particular city, not the city itself. It’s the people who are on display at Metroblogging, and the city is their backdrop. “
There is a bit of a follow up that that gets into the question of if the authors in a city are writing for the people in that city, or for the readers from the rest of the world. We’ve always maintained that Metblogs should be of use first and foremost to the people in the city they are being written about. If people from elsewhere want to check that out, they are more than welcome, especially if what’s going on locally is of national or global interest, but the people in the city are the primary focus. Since life in New York is different than life in Karachi, the feel of these sites is going to be different to fit those cities. The comments on his site end with Colleen from Los Angeles adding this final bit about individual style showing it’s face on the blog:
“I’ve thought a lot about what makes MetBlogs different from {your city name here} blogs, and to me, MetBlogs is an experiental thing: we (individual writers) experience our cities and filter that experience through our consciousness, then express it in our style. I know, I know–that sounds so simplistic, it’s almost asinine.
“But really, the boingboing model you brought up is a great example, and always the model I felt we came closest to, even if no one articulated it to me. BoingBoing is a directory of wonderful things, but only the wonderful things that its participants find wonderful. So it’s a lot about those four (or five? or how many, now?) people sort of fitting in so there’s some diversity of stuff, some color in the voice, but not so much that it feels ‘off-brand’.”
Spencer, also from LA, comments via e-mail about MB not fitting in the mold, but not really trying to to begin with:
“It seems to me that most of these analysis of Metblogs always start with something along the lines of “here’s my pre-existing expectation of what a group blog or community-specific blog should do and here’s an analysis of why MB doesn’t line up with those expectations,” rather than really asking, objectively, “What is Metroblogging?”
“I know this differs a bit from what [the post says] about what MB does and who our audience is, but personally I’ve never given a shit whether other bloggers get what MB is about because, IMHO, MB is the blog for people who don’t read blogs relentlessly. It’s about real life, and the day-to-day aspects of living in the city you live in and the fact that other people are out there experiencing it too. Sometimes that means you’re interested in what’s going on in city hall, other times it means you just want to point out a funny billboard to your friends. It’s directly connected to what’s going on outside your door in the physical world, and that’s why I have all sorts of friends that don’t read blogs but that do read ours.”
Julie from Metroblogging Orlando agrees, and goes back to the umbrella:
“I agree with many of the comments: it doesn’t sound like this guy knows Metblogs. I want to know if somebody lost their umbrella and it’s raining. What happens to a guy like that? Don’t give me the city; give me the PEOPLE in the city.”
So does Markland in LA:
“I also think the “I lost my umbrella posts” are good - what I like about b.la is that in addition to community news, we have random rants. We’re a BLOG afterall, and I think trying to be too much like mainstream media is actually unprofessional.”
Sherry from Metroblogging Montreal adds more to this idea:
“In the original post, there was an example used about how he just wants to know that it rained in such and such a city but that it’s irrelevant and too personal if the author mentions having forgotten his umbrella. I absolutely disagree. If I want to know that it rained in a particular city, I can go to the weather network, plug in a city name, and find out the weather there. Anyone can do that. I want to know how the author feels about it.
“When it comes to news, I can go to any Montreal news site and see what’s going on in my city. However, what makes me want to read (and what made me want to write for) the Montreal Metroblogging site is the fact that the authors add a personal spin to it, explaining why they feel it’s worth mentioning.
“I think the true beauty of Metroblogging is the fact that it ISN’T a clone of just another news site. That’s what makes it special and fun.”
Again it’s the people that are important, and it’s the bigger picture that we’re showing by focusing on the individuals. Sure any of our blogs can be looked at on an entry by entry basis, but that isn’t the intent. The sum is definitely greater than the parts. By seeing the personal observations of a handful of people in a city, you get a feel for what life in that city is like in a way that one single post by one single person could never do.
I’m going to wrap this excessively long post up with a thought about MB from a brand new contributor for Metroblogging Manila. On her personal blog, Toni writes about Metblogs and what drew her to us, and in fact gives a very clear definition of what we’re doing:
“What I liked about Metroblogging is that it’s a pretty personal web of blogs. I like how casual this network’s atmosphere is. That’s what encouraged me to apply. The entries aren’t too formally written — it’s as if you’re taking a tour of the city with a friend of yours. We’re encouraged to write about our favorite hang-outs, things we like (or dislike) doing, or perhaps things that catch our attention in the city.”
So, there you have it.