[debate] does that mean flaming?

You know, ever since one commenter's comment:

What is missing in all these pages is something that certified bloggers always miss, the addition of concurring comments, more links to useful information, stuff that creates synergies.

But any site that relies on visits from other bloggers, to the extent that this one does, will fail. False agreements of support will fail in the real world ...

... I've been reflecting on the "character" of blogs and the people they attract.

Relying on other bloggers

This site does not get so many fellow bloggers visibly appearing, which the comment above erroneously suggests it does and very few visitors comment, compared to, say, Mutley. In any hundred visits, there would be 8 to 12 blogger visits.

One commenter said there was "something wrong" with a site where there is no debate. I think what he means by debate is "flaming", with people throwing insults all ways, as he seems to enjoy. Synergy, he'd term it.

Links

He seriously suggests I don't link to further information or to other sites? And yet it's true there really is little debate here and I wonder why.

For example, the post on groupthink was one of my more serious. Now, glancing at the zero comments until last evening, one could be forgiven for thinking that no one was interested. Not so. On "entry pages", this post was leading by a long way.

Nature of this blog

From the beginning, my friend over here was worried about the unpredictability and the vast array of topics covered - worried that if you were interested, say, in ceramics, there'd be a post here on it with links and labels to other posts on it but it wouldn't be a "definitive work" on the topic. This is the Achilles Heel of a wide-ranging blog.

On the other hand, this blog assumes that the visitor does not have a one or two track mind, that when he/she comes here, his/her interests might be wide-ranging enough to find something else readable as well as the central theme.

There are five threads running through this one, other than the lack of debate:

1. wide array of topics and unpredictability in their choice;

2. a more 'ladies and gentlemen' tone than the in-your-face blogs;

3. a tone which suggests the blogger is of a certain age and outlook;

4. little time to get about and interact - maybe the big killer;

5. time zones - I'm asleep when the Brits are getting ready to debate.

In the end, I'll stick with the type of blogfriends I have, thanks very much. There might not be so much Tim Ireland/Guido litigation fun but I think I'd prefer what there is. I find all that slanging off at each other and threats of lawsuits tedious. And I would suggest that the post which brought this post on in the first place was an example of debate.

Each to his or her own, I suppose.