Hi Al
Is not community emerging? On HB's site and on GenX there is a bunch of regulars who comment of which I am the least active. You have your beer site which I don't go to but which is rapidly becoming known as THE BEER SITE. I bet youi have a core of regulars there too.

A similar group to HB and GenX exist on Cyn's site but with a few changes and some cross over types such as Nils and I. My most regular commentators include a mix of HB, yours and Cyn's plus a few others who never post on the other sites. Is this not what we see on many related sites?

We all have some regular but infrequent commentators and then we have the odd nice irregular ones plus a few weird ones that I usually ban.

I go to HB and CYN to have fun. I go to GenX to be informed. I go to Nils for a laugh but wish he would post more. I find myself increasingly attracted to Island sites, So then on PEI terms there is Fitzroy and City Filter which are aggregated communities where the editor chooses who posts but any of us can comment on.

This feels like emergent community to me.

If we're to attempt to answer questions (as you suggest to make blogs better) one has to be posed. Are you asking, then, if blogging is creating community, or are you making a statement about blogging NOT being community?

but what about guys like me (handsome laddie that i am); i post to be a wise ass. i'm talking to you (you talking to me? you talkin to me?). i'm not looking to participate in a conversation with a bunch of strangers. i dont want to hash out an idea in the context of a community. i dont want my comments to go to a general mailbox with all the other wise asses of the world. i look at a lot of blogs but i'll only talk to you because i know you (sigh). i got nothing against the idea of a blogging community per se but recognize that you're also having individual conversations here (one sided though they may be) whether you want to or not. that's valuable. i'm not sure a parliamentary approach will always get you the answers.

the information comes in the night. we've each got this frequency in our head that only us and our pets can hear. i think you're underrating anarchy. it can be quite useful. community smamunity. what is it with you and putting all the toys away?

just a thought.

I don't know that any blog is a search for answers - at least for me. My kids would argue that I have all the answers (or at least I think I do).

I go to blogs to be amused, tweaked, provoked into thought or response, or to be reassured that - whatever my experience du jour - there are still intelligent people out there. Sometimes, like portland, my response is limited to tossing in a one-liner or a smart-ass comment.

Sometimes, like coolgirl, I'll toss in a hand grenade and watch with delight as it explodes and provokes a stream of debate. Sometimes what I say expresses my true attitude, and occasionally I play the devil's advocate.

I'm not much for navel gazing (as time goes along, I have less and less navel to gaze at). What *I* want is a community that is loose and diverse, but which has at least a tenuous connecting thread - enough to say we're friends, but hey, we don't always agree.

In fact, agreement is the deathknell of spirited debate. Give me people who see things differently, argue (with civility) and can then slap down a beer or two together ... now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about.

Some blogs can create communities. If that is there intention. I think alot people started blogging without realizing what exactly they were trying to do. A problem that has resulted is that blogs are readily publicly accessible and also many blogs offer comments sections. Any old wing-nut can stumble onto a blog and make all kinds of nasty remarks. In some cases, some comments are out of place by inference (e.g. if you post about politics on "a good beer blog"). in other cases, some comments are rude and unwelcome. in yet other cases, some rude commentary is expected. I think if bloggers are unhappy about the kind of traffic they are getting or the kind of comments they are getting, they should publish a set of rules for their blog. If they want to create a community, they can say so; if they want to have political arguments, they should say so, etc..

I've had the notion of a blogging community explained to me as something akin to a circle jerk. As in, let's link to each other's blogs and leave comments (whether we've read the posting in question or not) in order to garner reciprocal comments.

That seems pretty silly to me. I link to just a few blogs that I actually read and enjoy. I don't spend a lot of time reading other people's stuff and blog for the selfish purpose of improving my own writing.

It seems disingenuous to link to a ton of blogs I don't read, and my general dearth of comments reflects this fact. And, I suppose, my anti-social nature.

Although I don't doubt there are lots of people out there who do read the blogs they're linked to and enjoy some sense of community.

Well, what's a "community", after all? A group of individuals.

Mind you, any time someone else tries to classify me, I'm tempted to violate it for the sake of violating it.

My blog is a bunch of random thoughts that people seem to enjoy reading and I enjoy writing. It works. When it no longer works, I shall no longer blog.

I'm sort of with Linda. While I'm too lazy to have updated my blogroll (so there are additions), I can say that I visit every single site on my blogroll every day - possibly even several times every day. I actually eschew aggregators because I love the anticipation of clicking on, for example, this site and seeing a whole new entry.

I don't include sites on my blogroll just because they include me, and I don't comment in order to get comments - I comment when something has piqued my interest or tweaked a response from me. Or, when I have an opening to inject a smart-ass line.

I don't need a circle jerk. I'm endlessly self-amusing. (Stop it, you. That was an "m".)

My two cents: many of the best "blogs" are really just good Web sites using blog software. They don't need no stinkin' community. They're just good reads.

'Tis the beauty of the Web. One-to-many or many-to-many. It doesn't matter.

To Linda's point, I've recently discovered another blog whos author has gone to great lengths to bolster her comment stats. She invents comment-games that have no purpose but to increase the number of comments she gets per post. It's a popularity game. (The author and blog shall remain nameless unless you really want to know -- oh, go ahead and twist my arm!) The author has developed and in effect leads a community of people who seem to have little to say, but they all comment the hell out of each other. Irony: it's a community, nonetheless. A community of people who like to see their comment-stats rise. (Yeesh.)

That was really good - I leave town for 24 hours and you all talk behind my back.<p>

I think that what I really am saying is that community is a thing of great value and this is not it, even though it is of value as well. This is a discussion and one I get to lead. I never get to lead in any community and, as portland would say so I will say it first, that is a good thing. Like Linda and Ben, I am practicing on my writing but also my thinking. I am most of all simply creating a record. The responsive piece is a bit odd and I have a quiet admiration for bloggers like Mike who have no comments - not because I do not like comments so much as it is a pure record of Mikeness. <p>So what is in a community that blogs do not have? Pot luck suppers. People you grew up with so you put up with. Short cuts that you used when you were a kid. The shared dislike of the neighbouring Shelbyville. A wage.

|So what is in a community that blogs do not have?

They do have plenty of brains but no nerves. (Hmm, would make a great tag line.)

(Oh, ofcourse I referred to what blogs have and don't have.)