I think I've had enough.

Selfishly, it's because I can't handle the change, you know? Four years ago, this journalling thing was radically different in tone and product and now, barely a day goes by that I don't find topics on popularity and lack thereof, accusations of elitism, accusations of ageism and just about every other -ism available. What's missing - what has been missing for a very long time - is the journal, the process of writing it, the small thrill of rolling out an entry that you know is well done and getting feedback on it. Or starting a correspondence with someone whose work you dig and not just because you want them to link to your site.

I can't handle all this excess baggage.

And I think I just realized that the community I knew is gone and it's not coming back. Which, I guess, is fine - but that doesn't mean I have to keep banging my head against a wall.

So, then, a series of question: what changes have you seen in the time you've been keeping a personal site? How do you feel about those changes? Do you think it's possible to rein in the doubt, jealousy and fear that seems to be everywhere these days? Or does it even matter?

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

Answers

The main difference I've noticed is that it's different people complaining about how much the "community" (journaling or just the web in general) has changed. Seriously, all these same complaints were around the first time I really realized that there was a web community; I think at that point it was Maggy writing something about Jen, or maybe Sage writing something about Jenna, or Gus vs. Elly vs. the world.

Honestly, everyone always wants to remember this utopia that never existed. Ever. The only utopia that existed was the one we each created in our own minds when we first arrived on the scene. The petty squabbles that play out now are only different from the petty squabbles that played out in 1995 because the players are different and there are more people watching.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

I think Beth is right about this, and considering how often she's been wrong lately I feel that's worth pointing out.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

Ummm - as a relative newbie I think it's what you make it.

I don't get diary-l - at all. That's not a community thats a couple of bullys who want everyone else to see things their way. Or at least that's what it seemed like when I subscribed. I'll probably end up with a typo in this now and get flamed by someone.

I found it a bit intimidating at first - I didn't want to write to some of the 'bigger' journallers in case it looked like I was just writing looking for a link. I was starting to think there was some unwritten rule that you weren't meant to as no one ever replied.

Now for the plus side - I have met some fantastic people through my journal and through their journal. People I would never have met otherwise. People who have been through things I hae been through and there's a lot to be said for any community where you can write something upsetting or painful and have someone reach out and say 'I was there it gets easier' or 'Yeah it sucks' or 'Me too'.

Girls who write just to chat. To share the differences between where I live and where they live. People who already know more about me then other people know in real life.

These are just the people I am in touch with in e-mail, it doesn't include the countless other journals I read where people share their ups and downs with us.

For me anyway there are so many pluses and so far no downs. Then again it's probably easier for me as I know almost all my readers.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

But it's strange to me, this whole "What's wrong with online journalling" thing. Maybe it's because I've never been on Diary-L. But as far as I know, the only online battle I ever fought was to get that guy to stop stealing Gwen's material from her site. Does that mean I'm out of the loop? I just don't usually bother when I see things that make me say, "Oh, whatever." Maybe I'm just a big puss.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

If you've never been on diary-l, then yes, you miss a lot of it. And you've made a smart move, so stick with it.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

I'm still new to this, and I have to say, I'm afraid to even go near Diary-L. All I ever hear about are people attacking each other, and I really don't want any part in that.

I do think that, bullies who like to flame each other aside, the community is what you make it. I agree with Caiohme -- I chat with the people who e-mail me, and every now and then I work up the courage to e-mail someone whose journal I really admire. I'm trying to make my own little community, and not worry about Diary-L or anything like that, because it strikes me as more of a great big catfight than a community.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

What community are you talking about gabby?

All I remember about four years ago, your 'back in theday' is that *you* used to go on and on making accusations of elitism, and the cabal of the popular kids. And you did used to go on and on and on about those darned popular kids. I expect that what you are observing is merely that you yourself used to be the excess baggage, and now other people are playing that role.

Jealousy? Doubt? Fear? Pfft. Water seeks its own level. People that operate out of jealousy will seek out others like them. Same with doubt, and fear. Me? I just write up these little things, and ftp them to my site, and it suits me fine. Sometimes, not often, I engage in a little email conversation with other people who do the same thing. I don't look at the referrers, so I don't get too caught up in the 'link me link me' games. I get more email than I can ever answer, and people send me great links to other sites.

When people talk about 'community', I think that what they see is a reflection of themself.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

Actually Gabby, I was thinking about this very same thing, as I noted what journals I like for the other forum topic.

When I first hooked into online journals, I used to be excited every day to see what my regular readers were up to. I couldn't wait to boot up my machine in the morning to read the new stories on those sites.

Also, since this was fairly early in the web explosion there was a sense of unlimited possibility and wonder.

That sense has become tempered by time, and in many cases the folks who were being optimistic and hopeful and full of wonder then, have encountered disappointment and become jaded and cynical about a medium they once wanted to explore to its fullest extent.

I remember also, however, that in "the early days" of online journaling, things would still blow up from time to time, just not as frequently as it does now, because there were fewer people involved.

With the expansion of the community, there are more people to piss off, offend and placate as well as more people to get to know, admire and connect with.

In 1995-96, only a few solitary souls had personal writing online, they inspired a new group to join them, who inspired another round of folks to join as well. Like a stone thrown into a lake, the ripples are still spreading outward.

Then, it was easy to grasp the extent of the phenomenon. There were only a handful of journals to choose from, to stay up to date with. Now the number of journals boggles the mind -- it's nearly unencompassable.

Renee used to be able to keep track of comings and goings in the community because it was still fairly small, now there's no way she could possibly keep her finger on the pulse of the _entire_ community.

So -- the numbers have exploded, more of the population of the planet is represented in the community (actually I suppose I ought to explain that when I say community, I mean anyone who currently keeps or once kept a journal or regularly updated personal writing online) and things have correspondingly gotten more complicated.

For the most part, I ignore the blow-ups in the community.

Back in 1997 when one journaler dissed another in her journal, it affected me, if only because I read both journals and was fond of both journalers, in the way that any reader is fond of the journalers that they read.

I even wrote a very vague entry about something that happened online and upset me.

A year later another big brou ha ha built up, except that I missed most of it because I was offline for a few days and only found out about it when I got back. But my reaction was much more blase.

Now, I don't pay much attention unless I've either been a) addressed directly (hardly ever happens) or b) am involved somehow -- as with the Journalcon topic here.

But for me, it's more important to concentrate on what I have to say, than get distracted but the latest flamewar.

I dropped diary-l because I didn't feel that it brought anything constructive to my experience as a journal-writer, only perhaps as a journal-reader and even then that was iffy.

Sure it was occasionally fun to have a good conversation with folks who shared the same hobby, but by and large the atmosphere on the list was too tightly wound and well ... it um ... kept overloading my mailbox.

So let's see ... the community has gotten a lot bigger and noisier and a bit rowdier.

But some things have stayed the same -- people are still telling their lives. People are still meeting through that medium, making connections and perhaps learning from the experiences of others.

It may be less intimate now, but there's a greater breadth of human experience to share.

The newness has worn off and I am no longer as irrepressibly excited when I boot up my computer to go read what's new at various sites (to boot many of my regular reads do not update daily). But I've grown to care about the people I keep up with and that, along with the sense of being told a story is what keeps bringing me back as a reader.

As a writer, I continue because I still like to do it. I like to tell stories too and what's happening in the larger community does not affect that. Whether one person, ten people, one hundred, or none, ever read what I write, doesn't matter.

I went through a brief phase of worrying about whether or not I was being read. I learned quickly though that that was a surefire way to kill my writing. When I was worried about being read, the words wouldn't come.

So I write what I want, when I want to and have fun playing with the story -- I don't lie in my journal, but I don't always tell the whole entire painstaking truth either. THursday's Child, is life as story, not life as fact.

So I guess ... no I don't think that the flareups matter in the long run. As long as there are people, there will be arguments and disagreements. The positives of journaling online, far outweigh the negatives for me.

Then again, perhaps because I am so low profile, that is why I don't need to worry. I have never been targeted by a vicious assualt. No one has ever told me I'm a terrible person because I wrote X, Y or Z.

At any rate, the one thing that hasn't changed about writing an online journal for me, is the pleasure I get out of writing. I go through periods where I feel more, or less like writing. More or less like reading. But there is always some small enjoyment, some small lesson to learn.

As long as I have that, I have no reason to quit, either writing, or participating in the community.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

I've been around for a long time, and have seen changes not so much in the tone of elitism, popularity contests, flames, etc., which have been around for as long as I've been writing, but rather the volume of it. I unsubscribed to diary-l several years ago and never looked back, but even still I've had my share of hate mail et al. Although the players may have changed (somewhat - there are many of us old timers still around) the game's just got bigger and nastier. Does it matter? Sure - it's ugly, petty, and cruel. But it can be avoided, too.

While I saw all this I also saw a way out - ignoring it. I unsubscribing from all the lists, quitting all the web rings I was on, standing in the eye of the hurricane and letting it all blow around me instead of walking into it.

Community definitely still exists. I have a core readership, many who have been with me for years, with relationships I treasure very much. I also get complimentary email from new readers (which I do answer). Both are gratifying, and both demonstrate community and friendship.

Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe it's just the way I approach things. Just write the way I write, and let the cards fall where they may. I'm not in it for the fame or the flames.

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2000

An outsider's perspective: I started putting my journal online a month or so back, and haven't had the slightest interest in finding the "journalling community". That's because I've read so many references to it as a nasty place that it's become a sort of Bad Internet Joke: the journalling community is all those people being rotten to each other. Maybe it's not, I dunno, but there's such a bad rep I'm not even interested in investigating or being a part of it. I do read a dozen or so online journals because I like the way they're written. Maybe a few people read mine, I dunno. Don't really care, either; I write for me.

Well, I'm sure there's something in there that was discussed, dissed and dismissed years ago if this fearsome Journalling Community lives up to its reputation. So it goes. I suspect I'm not the only extra- communitarian journalist who could have written this.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

I think the original idea of a "journal community" what with the creation of Open Pages and Diary-L has changed dramatically over the years. What started out as an easy way to connect to the other few people out there in the world who were also putting their lives on-line (for support, for ideas, for encouragement, for friendship - whatever) just doesn't work anymore when there are two thousand something journals listed, and 400+ posts a day to Diary-L. (I exaggerate, of course, I have no idea how many posts there are. I signed up when it was first created and couldn't handle the traffic then, signed up again about six months ago and bailed after only a week when the mailbox filled to capacity.)

Back then, in the day (I feel like I should be sitting on a front porch in a rocking chair talking to my grandkids - sheesh!) when there were only 20 or so people doing this we all chatted with each other all the time. It was like - "Hey, Cool! Somebody else is doing the same thing" or "somebody else thinks like I do, I'm not the only one out there!" and that was really, really great. Some people you liked and respected, and some people you didn't - the difference was that not everybody kept their opinions about this to themselves but felt need to comment on it on-line.

And that sucked then, and I think it still sucks now. To be reading somebody else's site who you admire and respect and find yourself dissed and totally misunderstood - or worse - completely dismissed as beneath contempt. Well! Talk about a wake-up call. I had my share of hate mail and nasty mentions in other journals for things I wrote, the pictures I posted and the lifestyle choices I made... and it's really hard not to fight back in your own personal space. I think some people are better at controlling these self-defense mechanisms than others. I've tried, and not always succeeded. Hey, we all fuck up now and then. Live and learn.

But I think there still exists a certain respect among those people who have been in it for the long haul - even if they don't agree with each other or particularly like each other. At least for me, anyway, there is this feeling of respect, of having gone through something together, and that because I know these other people so well and have been through their trials and tribulations with them through their writing over the years that if I get an email from them it is one I respond to right away. It's like chatting with an old friend. Or if I read something in their pages about trouble I'll actually fire off a message of support to them.

So yes, I think things have changed but only because the little bitty creature that was created 4 or 5 years ago has grown-up and has a life of its own now. How do I feel about those changes? Ahhh, I think they were sorta inevitable. I think Open Pages has gotten too big to be useful anymore, I find new journals now from personal recommendations, not web rings. Like who has time to scroll through all those lists? My goodness! Which does suck, cause I'm sure there are some great ones on it that I won't find until they are mentioned somewhere else. Do I think it is possible to rein in the jealousy? Nope, but 'tis the nature of the beast. It was always there before, just at a more tolerable level since there wasn't that much to be jealous about. Different people react different ways and the "let's all try to get along" just isn't going to work.

And so, when you are sick of the name calling and nasty notes and hate mail and stalkers, you pull your journal down and go into hiding. Maybe you still write, but you just don't tell people about it. Or you password protect your stuff. Or just have an e-mail journal. Or maybe you give it up for good. Yeah, it bites that some of my favorites are no longer around, that they felt the need to just get out and away from it all, and I miss their writings but hey, I can sympathize. If I have to rely on email updates from them then it's better than nothing.

- t

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

I'm another person who doesn't keep a journal but has been reading them for a couple of years.

It doesn't feel different from posting on Usenet or the Well or writing for an apa (Mike Gunderloy, I was in Lasfapa with you - I believe I was Vixen then) - anyway, there are always going to be some people who like you and cheer you on, and some people who don't and send hate mail, and a whole lot of people who read but don't say anything.

Since the web's gotten bigger, journaling has grown with it. So journalers get a lot more feedback, negative and positive. They're more visible. The circle of people who read each others' journals and email each other to say 'did you see what she said? the nerve!' is bigger. The fights are bigger.

I'm talking out my butt here because I don't have a public presence, but it seems like you have to keep yourself sane by listening to those people you respect and like, and trying to tune out the ones who are just shit disturbing. Those people, the first group, are your "community", not every person who ever decided to have a journal.

gabby, you talk about getting feedback on something that's well done, or corresponding with someone whose work you like. Is that not happening any more for you? Is it happening but is getting buried in all the other stuff?

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Lizzie asked: "gabby, you talk about getting feedback on something that's well done, or corresponding with someone whose work you like. Is that not happening any more for you? Is it happening but is getting buried in all the other stuff? "

My impression was that it seems to not be happening for other people - especially newer journallers whose posts I read via lists and boards who have this entire slate of preconceptions - and even beliefs that there are rules! - about how they can interact with other journallers, and I find myself literally dumbfounded - because that was never my experience.

I've got what I think are great correspondances and relationships with people and I think spending time on #journals on IRC has helped (Dreama and I get along now - which pleases me immensely). I'm still lazy as hell about replying to email (hi Cara!) but really, I'm on the case.

So I have my experiences that completely do not jibe with what appears to be the current experience of staring an online journal today. And what I see makes me cringe. And thus I am hitting a wall.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Gabby, thanks for answering.

Maybe those people whose experience is different have other problems that are making things harder for them in the journaling world. Maybe things really have changed and you were lucky to get in when things were at their best.

If things are good for you, I guess I don't understand the problem. You can wish the new people well, but they're going to have their own eperience of the journaling community and what have you no matter what.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Well, I think some of the problems Gabby points out are inevitable. I think the most popular journalers now have a lot more readers than the most popular journalers had in 1996. In 1997, 200 readers a day was a lot of readers. Now some journals have hits numbering in the thousands. In 1996 or 1997, even the most popular journalers could answer all their mail. In 2000, it's just not possible, not without a secretary. I know that has to make new journalers feel intimidated, but I'm not sure it's the end of the world.

I know quite a few new journalers who have broken in just fine ... but they didn't do it by writing to Pamie and Kymm and then griping about how exclusive the journaling community was when they didn't immediately get a link. Actually, they do it by writing to other NEW journalers and linking to each others' journals. Then when one of them gets recognized, they all get a little recognition.

And you know, that's the right way to do it. I would almost question the motives of someone who starts out by complaining about how exclusvie the journaling community is. Are they linking to other lesser known journals? Writing to the authors of those journals? Forming friendships and connections that have nothing to do with gaining popularity, and everything to do with common interests? Or are they just writing to me and asking for a link?

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Lord help me, I know posting this is a mistake, but I can't help myself.

First off, if any person starts a journal or a weblog to become the next derek, ceej, gabby, jen, maggy, alexis, lance, xeney, etc. then they have taken the wrong path from the start. The reason it is wrong is that these people (and countless others) are not themselves what they were then. People fucking change. That doesn't mean they aren't still good at what they do, because some of them are.

Just because you've got this eternally frozen black velvet painting in your head of what these people are or were doesn't make them better than anyone else. They are, in the end, just people.

As far as a journal community goes there will always be people online who bond into groups. It's a basic rule of human interaction. These groups may or may not include you and that really sucks sometimes. I feel your pain. I've walked that road until my feet were bloody. These days I'm just happy a few people recognize my name.

If you remember one thing from this note, remember this: just like everything else worth doing on this planet, you take away what you put in.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Gabby wrote, "My impression was that it seems to not be happening for other people - especially newer journallers whose posts I read via lists and boards"

Perhaps I've just been incredibly lucky, but I'm a fairly new journaller and I've found the journalling community to be incredibly supportive.

* I've never asked -anyone- for a link, but popular journallers like Beth and Kymm have sent hundreds of readers my way. I don't know either of them personally, but they've been wonderfully kind to me in email and public forums.

* I pick and choose the parts of the community where I want to be active. Great discussions go on in various Web forums and on journals-l. I know that diary-l is another matter entirely, but I think it's possible to feel a part of the community without being involved in that.

* I've made friends through journalling that are now a part of my daily life. This is something that hasn't happened for me on the Internet since my early college days when I started mudding.

I can't be the only one out there who's had a good experience, can I?

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

I've also had a pretty good experience. My journal is just over a year old. I think the key is to pick and choose which components of the community you like.

I've never e-mailed someone just to get a link. I only e-mail them if something they wrote struck a chord in me, or I felt I had something to say in response to an entry. I kind of just read the journals I like, and correspond with the people I like, and ignore the rest, and I've had a pretty good experience.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Ironically, I've actually not sent email when I really had something to say, because I didn't want the journaller to think I was hinting for a link!

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

I was just re-reading what Beth wrote about breaking in by exchanging links with lesser-known journals and I think that's also very true. The first journaller I really became friends with was Dave of Algernon and we've certainly each benefitted from the other's popularity. Our journals are about the same age, both hosted on Diaryland, both link to many of the same favorites - all by utter coincidence. Each time Beth links to Algernon, my hits bounce a bit higher. I'm sure that his do the same from me every now and then. We're often mentioned in the same breath on other people's lists and Web sites.

That's the coolest way to succeed. Every time I see Dave get a prominent link, it makes me almost as happy as if it were me.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Wow, Beth, I bet you're just so grateful that Valvis thinks you're right about something & is willing to "point it out." I'll bet you just live for those moments.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

Gabby,

How did you know I wouldn't be able to stick to my no forum diet? I meant it at the time, I really did : )

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

This is the first time I have posted to a forum. I have been reading them (becoming slightly addicted) for the past two months. I don't know all of the past politics, but in the just in this short time I have learned that there are issues among bloggers/journalers. (It is difficult for me at times to tell the two apart.)

When I first started finding and reading other's thoughts and ideas, I got really excited. I keep a written daily journal, and am also a graphic designer (print based) who is exploring web design. The thought that I could do something creative and personal really excited me. Then I became overwhelmed. On the one hand, there are *so many* sites and links. But at the same time it seems like everyone within the community is so tight. Would anybody even be interested in my little ol' site? And what if they did read, and the feedback wasn't nice? A journal is a very personal thing for someone to shoot back a dose of negativity.

I think I am going to continue working on my own site. If and when I post it, I don't know what I will do to let people know it is out there. I do get nervous at the thought of posting to other sites; afraid that they'll will think I'm just looking for link.

This forum has made some of the things out there that I was sort of "picking up" as an outsider much mo

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

I got cut off

...much more clear.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2000

I have read tonight many entries on this matter. Many of the entries are from people I respect, some of whom I have exchanged e-mails with.

As a newbie, started with Webtv sometime in April 1999, I explored, nosed around, did the search engine bit, got web sites of things that interested me.

Then I found Al Schroeder's Nova Notes, Beth, Piper Dane all people who had forums - - I read with interest -- but didn't have much to contribute, I thought. I did e-mail other journalists who I thought made a super good point or a beautiful turn of phrase or a novel way of looking at things.

Then I started posting in the forums. I guess the first one was Columbine's column I don't think it was a ? formal forum but anyone could chip in and have their say. There was great fun for quite awhile until I think certain characters let their egos drive them a bit too far and Todd made Columbine a non-interactive establishment citing the fact that he didn't have time for that kind of thing.

How many of you remember the whooping crane bit and all the puns and limericks passed back and forth, I howled with laughter for the time all that went on.

I was on Beth's notify list for a while, now I read, post, go back and see what entries have been made on the items that interest me. No need for notify with her.

There are several people who encouraged me when I timidly said something about thinking I would like to do a diary.

Mine is now a hair more than three months old, and like some have more or less stated in this thread, I do it because it is boiling, surging inside me, it has to be let out or I will explode. Content is probably boring and anyone who wants to is welcome to be an innocent bystander. In ordinary life a diary is a very private thing, here too a diary is a very private thing, visible to only a few thousand people who care to look over my shoulder. But the privacy here is anonymity and the trouble it might cause if friends or family would fall into it. I can pretty well say exactly how I feel. I can get sentimental, morose, exuberant, however I feel it is permissable for me to be exactly like I want to be.

My diary will probably always be plain and textual, I like all the prettys but seem to be caught up in my thoughts and other peoples journals. Rather than spend more time than I have on that I would rather visit. No picky picky, just a small difference.

There are one or two people who jump onto a thread whose ego seems to be supreme - - when I see their entries, I just go somewhere else - - - - - I do not have to become involved and after a trial or two saw that it did no good. So, I am out to have fun, meet nice people and read what they say and dip an oar in when I want to.

Y'r all a super good bunch and have proved your selves admirable to this ancient, creaky curmudgeon - Kudos

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

I have read tonight many entries on this matter. Many of the entries are from people I respect, some of whom I have exchanged e-mails with.

As a newbie, started with Webtv sometime in April 1999, I explored, nosed around, did the search engine bit, got web sites of things that interested me.

Then I found Al Schroeder's Nova Notes, Beth, Piper Dane all people who had forums - - I read with interest -- but didn't have much to contribute, I thought. I did e-mail other journalists who I thought made a super good point or a beautiful turn of phrase or a novel way of looking at things.

Then I started posting in the forums. I guess the first one was Columbine's column I don't think it was a ? formal forum but anyone could chip in and have their say. There was great fun for quite awhile until I think certain characters let their egos drive them a bit too far and Todd made Columbine a non-interactive establishment citing the fact that he didn't have time for that kind of thing.

How many of you remember the whooping crane bit and all the puns and limericks passed back and forth, I howled with laughter for the time all that went on.

I was on Beth's notify list for a while, now I read, post, go back and see what entries have been made on the items that interest me. No need for notify with her.

There are several people who encouraged me when I timidly said something about thinking I would like to do a diary.

Mine is now a hair more than three months old, and like some have more or less stated in this thread, I do it because it is boiling, surging inside me, it has to be let out or I will explode. Content is probably boring and anyone who wants to is welcome to be an innocent bystander. In ordinary life a diary is a very private thing, here too a diary is a very private thing, visible to only a few thousand people who care to look over my shoulder. But the privacy here is anonymity and the trouble it might cause if friends or family would fall into it. I can pretty well say exactly how I feel. I can get sentimental, morose, exuberant, however I feel it is permissable for me to be exactly like I want to be.

My diary will probably always be plain and textual, I like all the prettys but seem to be caught up in my thoughts and other peoples journals. Rather than spend more time than I have on that I would rather visit. No picky picky, just a small difference.

There are one or two people who jump onto a thread whose ego seems to be supreme - - when I see their entries, I just go somewhere else - - - - - I do not have to become involved and after a trial or two saw that it did no good. So, I am out to have fun, meet nice people and read what they say and dip an oar in when I want to.

Y'r all a super good bunch and have proved your selves admirable to this ancient, creaky curmudgeon - Kudos

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

I'm coming up on one whole entire unbelievable year on line and I have to say it's totally changed my life. Yup.

It's been a year of mostly high points, and I can safely say that any low ones have been caused entirely by my own ego getting in the way of the thing. I do think there's a community, because I can sense it and feel it, and I think it's a decent bunch of talented people, with all the ills.

It's a good idea to know what you want from this whole thing before you go online. You won't get: love, recognition, respect, admiration, kudos, or presents. You will get: practice, satisfaction, insights, friends-if-you-want-to-be friends.

Most important, if you like to write, you get the chance.

Yeah, you've got to find a spot for yourself on the crowded dancefloor and yes, it's still high school. But the sooner you realize that you're giving a gift, free and clear, the sooner you'll be content and thriving with whatever bit of space you've got to dance around in.

As I said, my life is 100% changed. I write every day, miracle of miracles. And I enjoy it: miracle with angels singing.

And now I'm going to look stupid and my name's probably going to show up twice ...

--

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

I've read about 1/2 the answers and each one is missing one key element... If you aren't happy, stop doing whatever it is that makes you unhappy. BUT you also need to keep in mind that not all these people are making personal swipes against you and hang your self esteem on that.

I would think that you journal because it is a release for you. All those thoughts in your mind, writing them on paper, giving yourself a bit of an intellectual jog each day - those are important. But if you are getting your sense of self-worth, self-esteem, or anything else, from journaling and the community, you're doing yourself a disservice. Journaling should make you happy - not become an additional issue with which to contend. Do it because it makes *you* happy AND NO OTHER REASON.

I'm always happy when I think I can use my LITERALLY *thousands & thousands* of dollars in therapy to benefit someone. Hope this helps.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

If anything, I'm learning that my observations are more on the mark than I at first suspected.

Allow me to rephrase: it's all about people now - and personality tics and how to be (oh dear god) 'popular' and who's in a smackdown with who and blah blah biddy blah.

Where are the journals, man? Where's the hype about the product?

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

Okay, now you've completely lost me. What do you mean, where are the journals? They're all over the goddamn place. Four thousand or so, aren't there? I try to link to at least one new journal a week. Kymm's doing a journal of the week thing. I keep finding whole new groups of journalers doing their thing outside of the old guard.

What in the heck are you reading, Gabby? I'm not sure I've ever seen you link to or mention a journal that wasn't part of the old establishment, either on a message board or in your journal, so maybe the problem is that you aren't out there looking for them. Unsub from diary-l for a while and just read some journals, why don't you?

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

Gabby, are you saying that there aren't enough journals now that are about writing per se, that they've been driven out by the ones about personality or flame wars or hit counts?

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

I got a Web site and started posting what I write every day in March. I didn't know about the journalling community, then. Didn't know there were online journals, even. Posting my work on the Web just seemed like a natural transition, from the small press movement, to mail art, to zines, and ezines, and to chat groups on the Internet based around a particular topic. I used to contribute to Rara-Avis, a chat group for people interested in hard-boiled mysteries. After awhile, I unsubscribed, because so much time was taken up by definitions, being scolded for writing off-topic, if you tried to relate the subject to anything broader, and insults, from quarrelsome people who seem to make up a good part of any such group. Rules, rank, insiders, and vogue-word disputation. Once I learned about journals, I bookmarked several favorites, and read them every day. If they have forums, I read the discussions, and email people who say things I respond to. Sometimes they reply, sometimes they don't. Good people tend to get in touch with good people, sooner or later. The rest fall away like chaff. White noise. Social climbing and careerism. Fads. My Web site is not a journal, although it contains journal entries. It contains email, and letters to my friends who do not own a computer, the same way a person might not own an answering machine, or a cellular phone. They read, and what they read is books. Good books. They write. Letters. To me. I interview myself. One of my favorite books is Conversations with Nelson Algren. Conversations with Claude Levi-Strauss, William Kennedy, Ernest Gaines. Then there is the backstory. Fiction. The poems. Poems. The book and movie reviews. Satirical squibs. Vignettes that bite. I am attracted to a writer's voice, not the form the writing may assume, and I like to see the range. Many different genres. I try to make my book like what a biographer would consult to write about a subject's life. Including tax returns and grocery lists. Recipes and scrapbooks. There's more of this on the Web than there is anywhere else because what's on the Web isn't screened for its commercial potential, with stuff that might cause a boycott or a lawsuit edited out. Now, my voice puts people off sometimes. I come on too strong. I'm vulgar. I whine. I lash out at scapegoats. I make excuses for myself. I just call it "Whining Boy Blues" and press on to Boulogne. I'm not whining, I'm playing the blues. But it isn't everybody's cup of tea. If you don't like it, don't read it. Try again. If you still don't like it, you probably won't. Not everybody likes everything. Not everybody should like everything. I write honestly and openly, about subjects that matter, in plain speech. I add to it every day. It isn't just a congeries of screeds, but has a design. A design I discover in the material, and learn from, making mid-course corrections, as I go. Seeing this happen--what does a person who writes every day write about, and what form does she put it in, repetition to the contrary notwithstanding--is interesting, to me. The process interests me. As inferred from the result. The ongoing, continuous artifact. Quotidian. Circadian. Daily. Journal is from diurnal.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

Honestly, I don't think I've seen a lot of changes in the OLJ world since I started Unspoken a year and a half ago. The debate over elitism seems to be an ongoing undercurrent, and in general I avoid it. Occasionally I subscribe to Diary-L for amusement, but I can't say it leaves me with any sense of community. I make a point of excluding "meta" journal talk from my entries, for a few reasons: First, I don't think people read my journal because they want to know what I think of other journals- once in awhile I may point out an interesting new journal or provocative entry, but mostly I stick to my offline thoughts and activities. Also, I happen to think that flamewars are about the silliest things ever. I've quit reading several journals on account of petty, gossipy bickering between journalers.

That's not to say I haven't had positive interactions with other journalers- I've enjoyed correspondence with quite a few over time. I get the occasional positive feedback from readers, and have written back and forth with a few of them, too.

My point, I guess, is that the community is what you make of it. I keep away from what I don't like, partake in what I do, and in general keep a relaxed attitude toward the whole thing. As long as I don't lose track of why it is I write in the first place, I'm happy.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

Ack, I had a unclosed tag attack! Beth, please fix it...?!

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

I think this is going to be a rare instance of me just deciding to walk away.

Thanks for all the discussion.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

I'm happy to say that I've totally missed out on the Bad Community thing, and this was an intentional choice. I don't participate in the angry conversations. I don't read diary-l. No one has ever said anything particularly nasty about me and I don't say anything nasty about other journalers. What I don't like, I don't read. It works really well.

I started a journal because I'd been searching for the writing equivalent of a new workout. I wanted to write every day and so I decided I'd keep a daily journal. And people sent me nice mail, and I got some links from big names and some links from little names and they all made me feel good.

When I love someone's journal I send them mail, and sometimes I mention them in my journal if I'm thinking about it when I write. *My* journaling community is the people I read and therefore care about, the people I chat with, the people I'd like to meet, the people I learn from even if they don't know who I am. And yesterday, I accidentally included my sig on a piece of mail I sent and an old friend wrote back saying, "Holy cow, I just found your journal and it was SO GREAT to hear from you. I read it all last night." She's definitely not a part of "the journaling community" but now she's part of mine.

Maybe what it comes down to is that I started worrying about the doubt and jealousy and fear a loooong time ago, and then I quit. I got my first piece of web-spawned hatemail in early 1994, baby. Now I've learned how to delete. Now I just want to read, write, talk about writing, and meet nice people. I'm really happy.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

Here's what I think is funny, and I'll probably get eyerolls for mentioning this, but I don't care.

Whenever someone makes a reference to the "popular journallers" my journal is never mentioned. Yet I know for a fact that I have a lot of readers and a lot of links in journals. You know what I think keeps me off the "popular" lists? The fact that I don't make it a point of going around insulting people for sheer numbers. The fact that I don't meta in my journal very often and if I do, it's usually in the sidebar or talking about someone who I consider a friend anyway. So this has been my opinion of the 'Journalling community' ever since I realized I'm not the prom queen: you 'famous journallers' can have your fame. My 300 readers and I are perfectly happy as we are, and arguing about the community and linking to the community just to try to fit in is definitely not worth the "prestige" that it brings.

Plus, it seems like the popular community comes and goes, but those journallers who do this from the heart and not from the statcounter and not from Diary-L are the ones who write the really brilliant stuff. And the brilliant stuff is what I want to read, whether you're popular or not.

Sure there are communities. Some of you live in Beverly Hills and elbow with the stars. Most of us live here in the small towns, perfectly happy knowing most of our neighbors and disinterested in causing disharmony.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

What's funny, Stasi, is that I almost cited you and the other Sacramento journalers as an example of a group that took the correct approach ... you each wrote about what interested you, made friends with all sorts of people in the community, linked to journals you enjoyed, and got links back. When I went away last April, I don't even know if any of you had journals. I came back in July, and you guys were all over the place.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

It must be the water here.

Oh dear, I hope things don't change now that they went and flouridated it...

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2000

Julie Tamburello asked,

Would anybody even be interested in my little ol' site? And what if they did read, and the feedback wasn't nice?

Two words: DELETE BUTTON. If the feedback is meant to be constructive then it's up to you how to handle it, but if someone slings you something wilfully nasty and negative then get rid of it, it's not worth holding onto. But I don't think many people would bother to actually do something like that, though. If I come across a site I don't particularly like, I just don't go back to it. I've got better things to do with my time than keep emailing people to tell them how intensely I disliked their site, and I'm sure so does everyone else here

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2000

Speaking of online journaling communities, has anyone checked out Diaryland? (diaryland.dom) Probably the only journal there that anyone here has heard about is the hilarious Brad Pitt journal. There are, literally, thousands of others at that site, some of them very good.

What Diaryland provides is very simple software so practically anyone with a computer can have their own online journal. Definitely no elitism here!

What this means is that the quality bar for online journals has been lowered quite a bit. It seems like your average Diaryland journal is written by a 13-year-old girl who gives up after three entries. Many journals are sub-literate, barely readable. However, there is much treasure among the trash.

For anyone who's curious to see what I'm talking about, I'd recommend going to Uncle Bob's site (unclebob.diaryland.com) because he seems to be the rallying point for many of the better journals. There's a list of links to many of them on his homepage.

-- Anonymous, April 29, 2000

A friend of mine from college started one of these website journal deals, and he got me into it.

And I started my own for many of the reasons that a lot of you did -- because it's a way to write every day. It's an accomplishment, really - concrete evidence that you're sitting your ass down and actually putting effort into a piece of writing. I also wanted to learn HTML, and buying "HTML for Dummies" or putting up a web page for my cat just wasn't how I wanted to put this stuff into action.

I didn't know there was a journalling community. I didn't know there were link-swap politics. diarist.net confuses me, and I thought Diary-L was a website, for the longest.

Sure, I want an audience. Most people who write are whores for a reader. When I first started hearing about how some journallers are popular, and get gazillions of hits, I thought "...gee." Same kind of wistfulness I get when a friend of mine publishes another novel, and I'm still writing my first.

I'm trying to figure out how the popular thing works, and I've asked my old friend, and I've been reading through this thread.

And this is the thing: it's too much damn work, his kind of shit - the linking and the focused and purposeful bonding that seem to make up the Be Loved By Others 101 handbook. I got out of the public relations field for a reason.

Everyone who's popular mostly, it seems, deserve all the Love, Fame and Many and Varied Accolades they get. And if they got them by just being groovy, more power to them.

I'll just be tiny and anonymous, here in the corner, singing songs to myself. It's better this way, because while it's still like walking around naked in your living room, at least the blinds are closed.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

"it's too much damn work, his kind of shit - "

ubba duh. "his kind" should be "this kind."

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Bill:

I think a lot of people *have* actually heard of Diaryland. While, at one point, I may have agreed with your assessment of their user base, I do have to say that things are changing over in the Diaryland parts.

I can think of three journals right off the bat that are Diaryland journals and are excellent journals: Elphaba, Diary of; Algernon; and Freak Magnet.

There may be a lot of 13 year old, illiterate journals there, but don't discount all of their users just yet! (=

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Skip this post if you want to avoid another Mike Leung Semantical Dissection

I'm trying to figure out how the popular thing works

Jen's line piqued my interest in this forum. When Rob announced his hit count had gone up over the heat he was getting over the midget thing, I thought that was one of the most remarkable things I had ever witnessed, considering the part I had played in hassling him. Where was I wrong (that no one has been able to tell me) that caused people begin subscribing to the person I had criticized? By refusing to make a simple apology for using midgetism as an analogy for deficiencies he saw in Dave, he had somehow earned the trust of 25 more people.

When Gabby, Lynda, and Jim had insisted that my posts were too incomprehensible, none of then had ventured any lines I had made as examples of my incomprehensibility, almost as if that were a dangerous thing. I would think it would be easy: 1) Tell Mike he is incomprehensible 2) Give at least one example 3) Mike either clarifies what he meant, but expressed badly, or he admits to an error, or he fails to explain, and stands exposed as a fraud.

The pattern I am observing is that the Journalling Community is populated by people for whom it is very important that no need or shortcoming of their own is demonstrated (perhaps, not unlike real life). Popularity then tends to go to those who fulfill this persona of competency. (I say persona, because I don't buy into the idea that a competent person is unable to articulate shortcomings in himself.) Jim's site had gotten a lot of attention from the Diarist Award Finalist Panels. But after Jim was confronted with a list of his own hypocrisies, after calling people hypocrites over single examples of inconsistencies, he shut his site down. It looked like it was too important to Jim to cop to any shortcoming.

I pointed out a flaw in Rob's reasoning, and he refused to address it, I presume, for a similar reason, and the readership rewarded him for it. I called Gabby, Lynda, and Jim to give examples of my incomprehensibility, and they refused, which Beth rewarded by closing that forum. Thanks. No more posts here. Nothing more to see. Move along.

You want to be popular in the journalling community? Refusing to admit to one's own shortcomings is probably a good place to start. (As always, critiques of my reasoning are welcome.)

End of Mike Leung Semantical Dissection

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Mike, you say of Rob that "By refusing to make a simple apology for using midgetism as an analogy for deficiencies he saw in Dave, he had somehow earned the trust of 25 more people."

This is a huge leap in logic to say that people who read a diary "trust" the person who is writing it.

People love tension and drama. And, if you're a part of the oh-so- contentious journalling community, there's a pretty good chance that a significant portion of the drama in your life is going to come from conflict with other diarists. So yes, being contentious is a good way to attract readers.

But of course, there's a price to be paid: the respect of your peers and readers. Journal readers are not mindless sheep--just because someone reads a diary doesn't mean that he or she agrees with what the author has to say.

Personally, I don't see the appeal of being well-known because everyone thinks you're a jerk, but some people seem to think that this trade-off is worth it.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

First, I'm amazed that that is still even on your mind - it wasn't THAT huge a deal, Mike. Can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't pursue it because the odds of having my response be comprehensible to *you* vs. getting into a long winded argument over something that just wasn't all that important to me weren't great. There was no way to give you a soundbite, because it wasn't just one phrase or statement that wasn't making sense, it was your entire train of thought. So maybe that was just me (and the others you mention) slipping a cog and not getting you... or maybe you weren't being clear, but it's your business if you want to correct that, I'm not under any compulsion to work with you until you have managed to do so.

And at the risk of getting into another 'this makes no sense' discussion, what does any of that have to do with popularity? Other than Rob, there's not one person you've named, including yourself, that is at risk of being labled popular however you decide to measure it.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

i started writing in june of 97. last year i had to go underground to stop some of my friends from gossiping about me, and my popularity has *never* recovered. funny thing about the "community" - it's very easily distracted by shiny things and newness.

i've had my ins and outs with the "community," and it's true: life's what you make it. but unsubscribing from diary-l makes everything so much easier to take.

tisiphone

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

This is a huge leap in logic to say that people who read a diary "trust" the person who is writing it.

I would like to see an example to the contrary. If we take the example of, say, David Letterman, here's a guy who has made a career of getting up in front of people and lying to them every night. However, if I were to time travel back a year, and presented a month of his material (assuming it's topical) to a theater full of people, I have no doubt that I wouldn't be able to get the kind of reaction he gets. After almost 20 years, people are going to give him an ear that they won't give me just because I'm standing behind them in the check-out line at the supermarket.

People love tension and drama. And, if you're a part of the oh-so- contentious journalling community, there's a pretty good chance that a significant portion of the drama in your life is going to come from conflict with other diarists. So yes, being contentious is a good way to attract readers.

I would say the opposite is true. The examples I gave were of people ignoring criticism.

First, I'm amazed that that is still even on your mind - it wasn't THAT huge a deal, Mike.

I believe I explained in the previous post why the dynamics of what I see here interest me.

So maybe that was just me (and the others you mention) slipping a cog and not getting you... or maybe you weren't being clear, but it's your business if you want to correct that, I'm not under any compulsion to work with you until you have managed to do so.

You have the compulsion to say, "Mike, I don't understand you," but just because you don't have the compulsion to say why, I'm the bad guy? So much for disproving what I said about refusing to admit one's own shortcomings. Hmm...

If my comments here bother you, I would recommend that if you're going to follow through on the first compulsion to criticize, you get the compulsion to to say why. Otherwise, I'll speak as I please. And at the risk of getting into another 'this makes no sense' discussion, what does any of that have to do with popularity? Other than Rob, there's not one person you've named, including yourself, that is at risk of being labled popular however you decide to measure it.

Jim was a recurring favorite of the Diarist Award Finalist Panel last year. You earned a Whitman. Gabby's always asking what ever happened to the good old days? which I've been taking to mean that she includes herself among the older, established journals. Maybe popular isn't the first word I should have chosen, but higher profile people are protecting the journalers I mention. All I've done is make an observation about them, and presented it for critique.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

No, I take that back. You people are popular. Even I'm getting 200 hits a day without being pimped in the "What Journals Do You Like" forums. You all get pimped all the time, so unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to adress you as popular journals.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

"Jim was a recurring favorite of the Diarist Award Finalist Panel last year. You earned a Whitman."

So popular in your definition is awards? They're nice, but anyone pining for them thinking they indicate some mass consensus is way off.

I was pleased by the Whitman - it felt good, nice boost. But the reality of it is that 1) it was decided by a very small group of journalers - I'd have been MUCH more jazzed if it had been judged from outside the journaling crew altogether as it was the year previous. And even then it only would have been an indicator of someone or small collection of someone's opinion.

In terms of bring IN readers... it garnered maybe 15-20 hits a week after the first month of so, and that tapered off later.

So it was nice. But not nearly as nice as getting a mention from Beth or Kymm in terms of measurable gain. It meant a LOT to me personally, but that's internal to me, and not a thing to do with 'popularity'.
"Gabby's always asking what ever happened to the good old days? which I've been taking to mean that she includes herself among the older, established journals."

She is... that's about time in, not popularity. If that were the measure, the kid who has lived in town the longest would automatically get to be more popular than the charismatic new kid. T'ain't so.

"Maybe popular isn't the first word I should have chosen, but higher profile people are protecting the journalers I mention. All I've done is make an observation about them, and presented it for critique."

Could be, but the only thing I can think of that makes any of us you named higher profile (and I'll dispute that we are) is that we all tend to voice strong opinions on a fairly regular basis - and those sure as hell don't automatically bring with it popularity, nor do they have much at all to do with how read our journals might be.

What do you mean by protecting? And please point me to any massive pimping happening in my name, because that would be a cool smile- inducer.
<
"No, I take that back. You people are popular. Even I'm getting 200 hits a day without being pimped in the "What Journals Do You Like" forums. You all get pimped all the time, so unless you give me a reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to adress you as popular journals." hehe... baby, I'm about to make your day, but this has been cracking me up everytime I see someone talk about some mysterious Others who are 'popular' and then complain about their hits when the numbers are higher than mine. At my 'peak' in hits (regular entries, and I'm not even sure what else was at play, but the journal was flowing..) it was about 250, and that stunned me. For the first year and half, I would get giddy if it was over 70. These days it's about 120 if I post, but I'm not updating regularly, so daily it's more like (drumroll) 70. So, sorry, but it looks like YOU are about twice as 'popular' as I am. Hope you'll still bother to talk to me over here in the cheap seats.

I like it just fine the way that it is - I have a core group of people who stick with me no matter what way the wind blows or whose list I'm on or decide to ignore me because the New Cool Kid (whoever it be) isn't interested in me, and that was all I ever wanted in the first place. The chase for popularity is a fools game.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

What do you mean by protecting? And please point me to any massive pimping happening in my name, because that would be a cool smile- inducer.... this has been cracking me up everytime I see someone talk about some mysterious Others who are 'popular' and then complain about their hits when the numbers are higher than mine.

In this case, there was no mysterious other. You acknowledged that the endorsement of the Whitmans, Beth, and Kymm (and the Diarist awards also endorsed you). They are protecting you by encouraging you. Feeding you internally counts too.

And I never complained about my hits. I complained about the kind of myopia that compounds, leading to hits.

These days it's about 120 if I post, but I'm not updating regularly, so daily it's more like (drumroll) 70. So, sorry, but it looks like YOU are about twice as 'popular' as I am. Hope you'll still bother to talk to me over here in the cheap seats.

Curse you, Lynda of (Parentheses)! You saved humanity this time, but when next we meet, all of Humanity will bow before me! And your little dog too!

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Fooled you again! I don't have a dog! (And I never said Kymm's ever mentioned me, cos she hasn't.)

Seriously now, yes internal gain counts - for a lot more than anything else. But if folks are looking for it from those they percieve as 'cool' rather than those who are with them regularly, taking the time day after day to reading and getting to know them... they are missing the boat.

If you chase popularity, and make out like it's a bigger 'feel-good' when someone you percieve as 'big' glances your way, than it is when someone you actually *care* about, like a friend or a relative or an old buddy who found you because of the journal, or the 1 or a dozen or the 50 or whatever people who you know are reading... you're just never going to feel all that great. The double edge of popularity is that it leaves so quickly when the wind changes direction.

I wouldn't trade the 20 or so readers that write to me, know my tiny little quirks enough to joke about them - the people that I KNOW as more than blips on a stat counter, not for 2000 extra faceless readers, any award out there, or the cover of Time magazine.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Geez, Lynda, you can't even let me have a lame Wizard of Oz crack? Anyway, yeah, you knocked some of my reasoning, but it's not like I've been given a reason to abandon my ideas. I threw out an idea based on some observations, only some of which you debunked. This topic interests me, because when something works, I like to know why, or at least why I don't care. I think I know why, and I gave my reasons, so if you think I'm wrong, give me an idea I can go to. Some people can live by Don't worry, be happy. I can't live by that, so if the secret to not thinking on these topics is something like that, well, then you shouldn't be worrying about anything I say.

If your attitude to anything I say is I can't be bothered to unravell you, maybe responding with you are incomprehensible just because isn't as just as asking yourself why you should care enough to criticize in the first place a point of view you can't be bothered to to give fair consideration.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

huh??

Damn, Mike... I thought we were talking, I didn't realize I was criticizing you. You're leaping as if I am whenever I say more than 'yea, Mike, right on, bruthuh' is your clue as to why I'm not going to engage myself with you in discussion on other topics.

Or this one either, as of right now. Carry on, dude.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

The most hits I've ever had was just short of 700 in one day. It was the day everyone found out that Jamie died, and half the journalling "community" mentioned it in their journals. I.E., the time I cared LEAST about hits.

Popularity can come for all the wrong reasons. Don't be too anxious to be the best-read journal out there.--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

I've reconsidered. The I don't have a dog was a valid reply. I'm sorry.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Sooooo...uh, how 'bout that Elian Gonzalez kid, eh?

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Someday I'll be super-popular and then those fucks at Whitman will be SORRY they never mentioned me. When Barbara Walters asks if I relied on the support of the journaling community, I'll be like, "PSYCH!"

Then I will kill all the losers and rule the world.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Oops... dang. I forgot that I was supposed to tie y'all up and light the fuse on the bomb before I typed that last entry. Shoot.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

Damn, Gwen.

Can I uh, have Australia? Just me and the dingos. We won't get in your way. Especially if you name me Grand High Vizier.

And then link me.

snicker.

-- Anonymous, April 30, 2000

I pointed out a flaw in Rob's reasoning, and he refused to address it, I presume, for a similar reason, and the readership rewarded him for it.

I refused to address it (and continue to refuse, in case you were thinking of trying to restart that ridiculous discussion) not because I felt my position was either defensible or indefensible, but because you were arguing semantics and were, I felt, simply doing so in order to see your name pop up on the screen. (The internet version of speaking to hear the sound of your own voice.)

In any case, I've never assumed anything about the amount of "trust" my readers have in me. What does trust have to do with it? I write because I enjoy writing, they read because they enjoy reading. It is exactly that simple.

Personally, I don't see the appeal of being well-known because everyone thinks you're a jerk, but some people seem to think that this trade-off is worth it.

I don't necessarily assume that this is directed at me (although it looks like it in context), but I'll answer it regardless. I've been writing a journal of some kind since 1996, and it is only in the past year or two that I have had a significant number of readers. I've never set out to appear to be either more of a jerk than I am in real life or less of one. I like to think I fall somewhere in between the opinions of my biggest fans and my most disparaging critics.

I may sometimes do things specifically to entertain my readers, but in the end I write because I need to write, like anyone who calls themselves a writer. I did it back when I had twenty hits a day, and I'll continue doing it when everyone gets sick of me and I'm back at twenty a day...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Al has a good point... you might have something happen in your life that will bring people your way, but in the end, did it really matter? My journal has three times the readership now because people are following the pending birth of my daughter. Not that I sit around worrying about this, but say my daughter were to be born stillborn or if I had miscarried her or something, would I still have the readership that I have? Very doubtful.

As for the trust issue, I do think that some readers tend to trust what you say too much. (And, on the other hand, if you write something that someone knows is incorrect, they won't hesitate to correct you ASAP.) For instance, I wrote a long long time ago that I was so happy to be throwing up every day because my doctor said that morning sickness is a good indication of a healthy pregnancy. Well, my reader interpreted that as "and no morning sickness is an indication of an unhealthy pregnancy" and so she worried about having a miscarriage for like a month until she talked to her doctor. She wrote and said maybe I shouldn't say medical facts unless I had checked them out. Ummm, until I call my journal "covet what was Dr. Genzoli's" I'm not editing myself for accuracy... then I'd be writing a book, not my life.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

As an interested sideline observer of many of these journalling discussions, here's something I've always wondered - if, as so many of you claim, you keep an online journal 'because I simply must write!', have any of you thought of removing the way in which readers can provide feedback - i.e. the email address at the bottom? Or is the feedback crucial to you as well? (I'm not trying to be clever here, or questioning your motives - I'm just wondering how it works for you all).

I am a classic spectator in that I regularly email a journal writer if something I read strikes a chord. However, if I was keeping an online journal I'd be inclined to react badly if somebody emailed me with anything negative - and Stasi, I'd include 'you shouldn't be giving out medical advice' in that category. But then again, I'd never email anybody and tell them that what they'd written sucked, or was completely wrong either.

I can't understand this online 'community' idea. Isn't this a grown- up, online mirror of the 'cool kids at school' concept? None of you make money writing your journals, do you? So is increasing your hit rate simply a matter of pride?

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Well, it's pride, it's feedback, it's a lot of things. I know a lot of people write to make connections -- I don't think wanting to meet people and make friends is necessarily a high school popularity thing.

In fact, I never understand this "it's just like high school" argument at all. It's not like high school; it's like life. You want to do the best you can at something you love, and you'd like to meet some interesting people while you do it. Even if someone is treating journaling as a competitive activity, why is that like high school specifically? Maybe it's like business. Maybe it's like sports. Why high school?

Anyway, as for the mail link, I tried removing the mail link for a while. People get really pissed when you do that. And some people get really frantic if they can't contact you. Readers sent mail to me via other journalers and my then-web host. I finally gave up and put the mail link back.

The web is different than the print world; readers expect to be able to deliver feedback, and they don't like it when they can't do so.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Beth, people must really want to talk to you!

I took down most of the e-mail links on my page about 2 years ago (there's one in the Open Pages code on my diary index page, but you'd really have to go searching to find my e-mail). As a result, I don't get a lot of reader mail, but that which I do get tends to be more substantive than what I used to get. Nobody's ever complained, either.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Some of the most enduring friendships I've made have come about as a result of my page, and while I'm not sure that my writing changes all that much because of the feedback, I value it for purely personal reasons.

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I'm writing, if I am thinking about my readers at all, I'm more often than not thinking of how individuals that I already know will react to what I'm saying.

Even my recent move to Connecticut would never have happened if I hadn't become friends with someone who lives here, someone who was a fan of my page. So in that sense, keeping a journal and communicating freely with my readers changed my life in a hugely positive way. And that's just one example...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

To me, the high school comparison is because of the cattiness that seems to surround journalling at times - the sense that some people feel there are 'cool kids' and then get paranoid if they're not in the clique. Maybe it is just like life - some people (Beth, Pamie, Kymm et al) will always be better at something than other people, and everybody wants to be the best, so we always resent those better at stuff than us.

I can understand those reasons regarding feedback - I certainly relish the prospect of being able to offer feedback straight away, when something a journaller has written strikes a chord with me.

Strangely, this exposure to the 'seedy underbelly' of the journalling world has made me more interested in the idea of doing it myself some time soon.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I believe Rob when he says he will continue to refuse to address what I've observed. I believe this because he assumed I posted to see my name pop up on the screen, when I clearly stated I posted to discuss what I see as making his site work, in terms of gaining readership. So, it's not like I believe that I have his ear anyway. Rob has nothing to learn from such a discussion, so instead of taking my word, he closes his mind to anything I have to say about my motivations. Instead of considering if anything I said was true, he pulls the old he just wants his name seen. And why shouldn't he. The readership is rewarding him for his efforts.

We always see him complaining about negative mail, so instead of ever considering that anything negative about him is true, he simply sets up links and invites people to complain (send all the e-mail you want; I'm not listening). When the diarist awards showed no interest in him, he complained about it in a couple of entries, and he started getting nominations. He publicly gets hassled over the midgets, gives us a cock and bull story about addressing stupid racial and ethnic stereotypes and biases and such, using "little people" to represent any group that finds itself unfairly targeted and his subscriptions go up. Yeah, he can say I'm only bringing this up for exposure, but Rob's techniques work, and I don't know why. Maybe I just think this is an interesting topic, that people like this sort of behavior. This isn't to say that I think Rob should change his behavior, especially since it's bringing him postive results. I also mentioned a couple of other journalers who had received some higher profile patronage who displayed similar behavior. In my first post, I gave an explanation why I think these techniques work, and I don't think my answer was particularly pretty. Someone please tell me why things aren't as they look to me.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Mike, your problem with Rob not addressing an issue at his readers' request raises another journal-related question for me - how do you guys (the journallers) react when your readers feel they can 'expect' something of you - that you must explain yourself, or justify what you posted the day before. Because I don't think keeping an online journal should mean you owe your readers explanations for anything.

This really puzzled me when Pamie didn't update for a couple of days a wee while back - somebody started a 'where's Pamie' forum thread at Squishy, and people were actually putting forward theories about what could have gone wrong with Pamie - where she was, etc etc. Some of those people are, I'm sure, just concerned when somebody they like reading about stops updating, but others struck me as crazy weirdos who seemed to feel Pamie owed them a reason. (Sorry for using you as an example here, Pamie!)

Another example is Kim Rollins and the drama surrounding the way her journal ended. From what I can gather, people felt angry and cheated because she dared to not include every single element of her life in her online account! What cheek!

The way I see it, online journallers should be able to choose exactly how much they wish to reveal about themselves. If this means they don't always explain away their actions, then so be it - if the reader doesn't like it they can always vote with their feet.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Well, what weirds me out is when people who obviously don't like me and don't agree with what I have to say still continue to read my journal and write me angry letters about it. I mean, what the hell? If you dislike it so much, don't read it. Simple as that.

And yes, it does sort of annoy me when people seem to expect some kind of explanation behind everything. I've had people (very recently, in fact) point out to me, as though it were some sort of horribly damning accusation, that I was -- gasp -- INCONSISTENT in my journal. As in, I said I liked something a few months ago, and then a few days ago I said I didn't like it.

Uh, what? It's a journal. It's not supposed to be consistent. And again, if somebody doesn't like it, I fail to see why they continue to read it.

Maybe I'm just really sensitive to this right now.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I don't have a problem with Rob, and he doesn't owe me an explanation. I understand that Rob's way works, and I'm trying to get a handle on the need he fulfills when people read him.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

It was strange, the "Where's Pamie" thread because people were making assumptions and conspiracy theories as to what was going on with my life. Another that strikes me was the "Who's going to marry stee" thread on this board where people went past the rallying for marrying stee and just went on to claim eric and jeremy.

There are times when this seems all too much for me, and getting things sent to my house or having people call me that I don't know just to chat or whatever else that happens because of my website where I wonder if this is really what I want to do. But the fact remains that I want to write for a living, and Squishy has given me jobs, pays me, and continues to open doors for me that I otherwise wouldn't have gotten. it's also given me new friendships that I wouldn't trade for anything, and has brought a closeness among friends that I might otherwise have lost.

It's got pros and cons, sure. I don't understand some of the backlash, as i've never really ripped someone else's journal. the only way i can see it is that some people don't like my journal and can't understand why anyone else would. It's a difficult situation sometimes. there are now things that I couldn't really put up in my journal, and sometimes the people closest to me tease me about spilling their secrets when they share something close with me. I wouldn't do that, and they know it, but they also know that my life is more public than the average person's, and that makes them wonder what the hell is wrong with me.

And I've felt a distance from it lately, with the events in my life tht have gone on that I simply cannot write about in a public forum, and I hate that I feel any sort of guilt that I'm not writing about them. I can see why people pull, or "break up" with the web. It gets difficult, and I never wanted it to.

And I can only read so many journals. I can only respond to so many e- mails. It amazes me when I get hate mail about not writing back to "That was so funny. thanks." I figure that if you aren't asking me a question, or aren't someone I know, then you don't expect a reply. I have a job. several jobs, actually, and answering e-mail and reading e-mail already takes up several hours of my life.

But sometimes I feel like I'm not a person anymore, and rather a name or a presence. I don't mind it all of the time, but when I am not updating because my life is in a bit of a crisis and people write on my forum that they think I must be sleeping with someone else, then things get to be a bit annoying. I'm not bitching about fame, I'm just surprised at how much people expect from someone who is just writing about their day. It is, after all, just a webpage. Not a book, not a movie, and not a gossip column.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

(Perhaps I'm just talking out of my ass here, but I'll run that risk.)

Mike: I think you're trying to understand something that can not be understood simply by participating in a couple of forums and gathering the opinions of a handful of people. Like anything else in this world, if you are trying to understand the dynamics of something it would take years of research and I don't think anyone would ever have access to all the information necessary to figure out "how the journal(l)ing community works".

Why does it have to be that "Rob's way works"? It seems to me that you're saying that the only reason he has readers is because of his ability to piss people off. Why can't he have a lot of readers because he's *gasp* a good writer? Don't you think that maybe there are people out there that want to read about his daughter? Or his opinions on music? Or his latest addictions?

(And I certainly feel no better than Mike at this point, sorry to hold you up as the example, Rob.)

I'm trying desperately to make a point here, but since I just woke up, it's not happening very quickly.

It seems that you are trying to figure out how a journal is popular by looking only at what the journal(l)er is doing. Have you even THOUGHT about what the reader is doing? What the reader likes? What the reader wants? That, in my opinion, is what should be looked at. And yes, maybe some people like it when Rob says: "No, I'm not going to discuss it, send me hate mail if you have a problem with it.", but I'm sure that there are just as many readers (if not more) who don't care about that aspect of his writing and are reading for other reasons.

It's an easy logic trap to fall into: Rob pisses off some people in a forum --> Rob's reader base increases --> Rob's readers just want to read Rob because he pisses people off.

But I don't think it's a fair assessment of the situation. Until you can interview all of the readers of a site and ask them why they come back again and again, I don't think you'll ever really have the complete ability to say: "So-in-so's way works."

And again, to run the risk of talking out of my ass and being flamed - I, too, often feel that your posts (Mike) are made simply to hear the sound of your own voice. But that may just be me.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I didn't mean to suggest that Rob isn't a good writer, or isn't funny. But merely being good and funny didn't get him the reader ressponse he has now. Rob got a Diarist Award nomination after he mocked it. Those 25 readers subscribed after he walked away, from what I thought, were valid criticisms of what he had presented. Jim and John get Diarist nominations after devaluing most journallers. Is restraining any display of need on the part of the journaler attractive to most people looking for something to read (sort of like when that girl in high school turning her back on you made her more attractive to you... hey, maybe that's the analogy I need to hear). These are questions I believe Rob himself would have asked over a year ago.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

But merely being good and funny didn't get him the reader ressponse he has now.

Interesting. I'd rather hoped that perhaps it had...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Well, the only thing I have left to contribute to this particular portion of the conversation is to simply say that I still stand by my earlier argument. You're not giving his readers enough credit and I, for one, am insulted by it. (Since I'm one of his readers and all.)

And I'm not just saying that because it's Rob. I'd make the same argument if this conversation were happening over Beth or Pamie or Stasi or Heather or anyone.

In fact, the more I sit here and think about it, the more pissed off I get.

How arrogant must you be to think that you know WHY all 400 of Rob's readers are reading him? How damn sure of yourself and your knowledge of human nature you must be.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle.

I stand by that argument.



-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Yeah, I wish I could win awards for being good and funny, too. Maybe I'm just not good or funny enough.

Sometimes I'm seriously tempted to say ugly things about other journalers so I can win more readers and maybe win awards. But then I'd be scared that the other journalers would say ugly things about me and win the attention away from me. (That's why I write my site. For the attention, and to see my own name. I'm petty that way.)

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

How arrogant must you be to think that you know WHY all 400 of Rob's readers are reading him? How damn sure of yourself and your knowledge of human nature you must be.

Not arrogant enough to ignore observation, because it's inconsistent with my view of the world.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

But merely being good and funny didn't get him the reader ressponse he has now.

Interesting. I'd rather hoped that perhaps it had...

Holy shit, he did it again! I think I have the urge to subscribe to Rob myself.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

On the topic of reader "expectations":

I don't think the fact that there was a "where's Pamie" forum means that her readers expected her to explain her disappearance. Just because someone is curious about something and asks about it doesn't mean they "expect" an answer, it only means that they would like one.

Perhaps it is some sort of guilt on the part of the diarists over not being able to fully reveal themselves to their readers which sparks this kind of defensive response when readers ask questions they don't want to answer.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I lied. I'm not done. I keep thinking of things as I'm getting ready to leave for the day... (So thank your lucky stars that this will prolly be my last post... I'm LEAVING!Heh)

Okay, so let's just say you ARE right about the fact that those people that subscribed to Rob's journal are ONLY reading him because he and Beth got into a BigHugeNastyFlamingArgument(tm) on Beth's forum. What was the figure you quoted? 25 people ran and subscribed?

Out of 412 subscribers - JUST subscribers, mind you, we all know that for the most part, people have more readers than are on their notify lists - so... let's say Rob has 500 readers. A WHOPPING five percent of his readers are reading him because of a BigHugeNastyFlamingArgument(tm) with another journal(l)er.

You're right. You have it ALL figured out. Rob getting in BHNFAs with people is the ONLY way that he could have gained any readership over the past four years.

I'm sorry I ever doubted you.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Crap. Does that mean that now that Beth and I have made nice, I'm going to lose readers?

Incidentally, Beth, not only do I plan for Schuyler to rob liquor stores, but she'll be expected to steal booze for her old man while she's there. I have high expectations for my little one...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I'm afraid it does, Rob.

Sorry, that's the way we are here in the Journal Community. So damn fickle and what not.

But hey, at least we support each others addictions, eh?

(That was really the last one, I'm out the door!)

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

"Perhaps it is some sort of guilt on the part of the diarists over not being able to fully reveal themselves to their readers which sparks this kind of defensive response when readers ask questions they don't want to answer. "

Actually, it was about when the thread turned from "Hope you're well, we miss you" to "Hey, I'm kinda joking here, but I think all of this has to do with another journaller she must be fooling around with."

Much like the Mo White and the Seven Journallers thing, sometimes it's like I'm reduced to an adjective or one single emotion and all of the people in my life are these trading cards or people in the pages of Entertainment Weekly. I'm not getting defensive, it is just a level of fame that I never thought would be acquired through something as simple as an online journal. I usually don't talk about these things at all and just keep it quiet, but it seems that you might think that I'm just being defensive about some sort of guilt over my private life. In actuality, I'm surprised at how much responsibility I feel to be honest with people who in some extreme cases would reduce my life, my successes, my failures, my loves and my heartaches to a "well, I'm just saying, she's probably screwing around. Kidding. Kinda. Whatever, can I date Eric next?" It's odd, that's all. And those aren't the people that I mostly come in contact with on the site, and I love my readers and I love the people I've met through Squishy. For the most part I have no complaints at all. I'm just surprised sometimes at the ones who seem to think they are a part of your life.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Pamie, do you get good responses from people when you write things that aren't meant to be funny, like when you lost your cat? (That was an amazing entry, you know.) Do people resent when you step out of the pidgeon hole they've placed you in, or do the dig the new perspective?

When you're "supposed to be funny", the reaction to non-funny material can be sort of weird. At least that's what I find...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I have to say, when that discussion was going on over at your forum, Pamie, I was a little creeped out on your behalf. And in a way, the positive responses creeped me out as much as the salacious ones. The "we know Pamie is a strong person and she would never, ever do anything stupid, and she'll tell us all about it when she comes back" responses. I thought, what the fuck? We don't know Pamie. She may be a strong person, she may not be, and I bet she makes mistakes sometimes, and I bet none of this is any of our business.

It was like you were on some sort of pedestal, and not just you -- Eric and the cats are up there with you, as the most shining example of a perfect twentysomething web couple.

I think that highlighted for me the drawback to writing a journal to entertain. I mean, we all know the drawbacks to writing an intensely personal, soul-baring journal, but I'd never considered the flip side of that. Because journalers X, Y, and Z let it all hang out in their online journalers, readers get the expectation that Pamie is doing the same thing, that what you see is what you get, so Pamie's just a funny girl with good stories. And the only unhappiness in her life are the few little tidbits she chooses to share.

Of course that's not true. Any sensible person knows that no one's life is perfect, but tragically, not all readers are sensible people.

It even makes me a little glad that I throw the occasional tantrum, gripe about my boyfriend, and experience a public meltdown a few times a year. Many of my readers don't like me, but they damn sure know I'm human!

(If I ever disappear for a few days, my readers will assume that (a) Jeremy ran off with a cocktail waitress, (b) I got fired for posting forum responses at work and offed myself during the resulting depression, or (c) I broke my computer for the nine hundred millionth time, probably by doing something stupid. I can feel the love already.)

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

The problem with becoming really well known on the web (and I am defining well known as having a site that crosses community lines, ie an OLJ that is not just read by other OLJ'ers, but by other groups on the web), is that there is that moment of suddenly going from a person with a good website to becoming a commodity, or a brand in your own right.

And sometimes this can be a good thing....for example, I might not have found some of Pamie's other writing on the web, if i hadn't seen it linked from her non paying journal site. But other times, it can be a very weird thing - where suddenly people think they have the right to discuss you the way they discuss celebrities. That whole "where is Pamie" thread on her site was creepy as hell....it started out of genuine concern, and got weird.

I was reading a Metafilter thread last week about Roger Black, and someone wrote as a comment something along the lines of, "If that is what Derek (Powazek) thinks, than that is what I think, too." How creepy is that? Not that Mr. Powazek isn't entitled to say or think whatever he wants, but that people choose to relate to him in such a fawning manner, no doubt in the hope of attracting his attention, than to relate to him on a person to person level.

I don't know...sometimes I think the American Cult of Celebrity has a corresponding mindset on the web, and it is a very weird dynamic to see. Sometimes, people give advice about upping one's hit counts in the journal community by "linking to Pamie, Beth, or Kymm", and it makes me sad - these are real people, not the cast of some warped Fox television program, and not here to provide gossip fodder for the bored and the star struck. I read on a site recently that Journalcon didn't have credibility until Beth said she was attending.

Um...i was going somewhere deep and profound with this...but...sort of lost the thread. I think that people who actually think about all of this in terms of popularity are likely never to be popular, just like in real life. People who just noodle around, do their own thing, and generally just be themselves seem to do the best.

There is a lesson to be learned though, about not relating to people based on what you think their hit counts are, or what their "webcred" might be, or what you think they can do for you, but because you respect what they have to say for themselves.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I do get good responses to non-funny material. The Lillith reaction was amazing, and really made me feel good. However, the reaction to talking about what has happening between me and Eric a couple of months ago was very different. It's one thing to get a "I'm glad you're doing better." It's entirely different to get a "He's just going to end up breaking your heart and you should leave him because I said so." Because the truth is no one really knows Eric, they just know the stories I share. They do know more about me. But I've never written something and went, "Let the e-mail arrive!" and then been disappointed if people didn't give me props for non-funny material. I just try and write something every day. sometimes it sucks. sometimes it's funny, and sometimes it's sad, sure. I think I'm more taken back when someone that I don't know at all and have never e-mailed or spoken to tries to tell me what's going to happen to my life, or tries to dissect my relationship(s) and acts as if I'm a book he or she has already read.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I just wanted to add that Journalcon didn't have any credibility until I said I was going to attend, and in fact no opinions whatsoever have any legitimacy unless and until I endorse them. Don't try to think for yourselves; you'll only get hurt in the end.

And send me money. If you send me money, I will link to you and pretend to like you.

(I've always wondered what it would be like to be as much of a tyrannical elitist as I'm reputed to be.)

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Sometimes, people give advice about upping one's hit counts in the journal community by "linking to Pamie, Beth, or Kymm", and it makes me sad - these are real people, not the cast of some warped Fox television program, and not here to provide gossip fodder for the bored and the star struck. I read on a site recently that Journalcon didn't have credibility until Beth said she was attending.

Yeah, ditto on the "become friends with them and then you're golden."

As if I don't choose my friends, and I have all sorts of people who want to be friends with me just so they get a popular journal. One thing I've learned is that a journal doesn't get "popular" unless it's well-written. there has to be content, or everyone gets bored in two days. It doesn't matter how close of a friend you are to me, I can't really keep your readership up. And to think that I would be that duped by someone who was just trying to be friendly so their journal gets more hits is sort of annoying. I understand that it was written with humor, but the underlying meaning is that I or Kymm or Beth or whatever have the power to control who has a popular journal and who doesn't. I wasn't a popular kid in high school, and I don't really think I'm one online, either. I'm just like in high school, sorta floating around being the funny girl to a bunch of different groups, and no one really hates me, but no one considers me their best friend, either. And I'm very comfortable with that. But sometimes I get the guy who used to ride his bike around my house and leave Richard Marx lyrics on my door. And that's creepy, yo.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I totally relate to the "having your relationship dissected" thing. When I first started my journal, I was really open about my life, and the problems I had in my relationship, the good times AND the bad times, and all that sort of thing.

I've really toned down on that, for two main reasons: 1) While Keith has never complained, I feel that it's not fair to him to make the details of HIS life public, and 2) I didn't really enjoy or appreciate the comments I was getting.

I mean, right, what you said is totally true, Pamie: all my readers know about Keith is what I say about him. When we have an argument, and I write about it (I don't do this much anymore), they only hear my side. They never hear what he has to say.

I'd get all kinds of negative feedback about my relationship. It ranged from ultra-religious people telling me I needed to get married and go to church, to people telling me that Keith was obviously bad for me and that I should dump him.

These days I just take the attitude that some people have a personal agenda to fulfill, and some people don't think about the consequences of their actions, and some people are just plain mean. And I'm not going to worry about them. I write my journal, I entertain a fair number of people, and that's the important thing.

I don't know where I was going with this, except maybe just to say that maybe it's the nature of keeping an online journal. It becomes this one-sided conversation, where the listeners feel like they know SO much about you, and they start to feel like they're really your friend, even though you know nothing about them. And like I said, some people just have a personal agenda. (I got a lot of flak from religious types after my recent entry about the joys of premarital sex, and y'know what? I don't give a rip.)

So, yeah.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Well, you know what *I* do...is I ask myself, everytime I have to make a decision about something is, What Would Xeney Do?

I have found this to be the best course of action, and you should as well. And you should start *right now*!

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

"Perhaps it is some sort of guilt on the part of the diarists over not being able to fully reveal themselves to their readers which sparks this kind of defensive response when readers ask questions they don't want to answer."

I never suggested, or even believe, that the journalers themselves were aware of how they earned their prestige. But this isn't the first time this question has come up. Well what makes a popular journaller? I won't read what you write about what you had for breakfast. Unless you make it interesting. If you're going to write about what you had for breakfast, make it interesting. Yeah, you can mock me for being a meany, but this question sure as hell didn't begin with me. I've thrown out an answer, and the second most descriptive answer I've seen to the question is don't be boring.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I wanted to pop back in to offer this small reality check. A while ago, Tesserae sent me a link to this Yahoo! Club for people who participate at Epinions.com.

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/epinions

The politics involved with recommending, trusting, not trusting are absolutely astounding.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Pamie wrote:
I understand that it was written with humor, but the underlying meaning is that I or Kymm or Beth or whatever have the power to control who has a popular journal and who doesn't. To some extent, you do. Journallers with a large readership can simply spread the word faster about a new writer. It's up to the writer to keep the readers, of course, but I find almost all of my new journals from the recommendations of people I already read. And I'm much more likely to find something I like from one of my current favorites than from a random Open Pages link. I like to think that my journal can stand on its own merits, but it's also living proof that a mention from a "big name" can exponentially speed up the process of gaining an audience. I went from having 5 or 10 visitors a day to a regular 50 or 60 after one link in Beth's weblog, from 50 to 100+ after Kymm made me her "journal of the week" last week. I think it's a shame that people would want to take advantage of your popularity, but I can also understand the allure, having been on the receiving end. I didn't start my journal with an agenda to get popular, but it's ever-so-much nicer to know that people are reading. I hope that I can return the favors done to me by pointing readers to other journals, especially new ones, I enjoy. That's the way it works, right? We all have at least one hobby in common.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I think I'm finally starting to understand Mike's premise. I hope.

My take is, yes there are people who will scurry over to subscribe to a list if they see controversy brewing, and think they'll get more 'goods' if they get on the list.

But, no, they do not STAY unless 1) their quest for gossip is fulfilled (and as soon as it passes, they're gone), or 2) they find out they like what they see.

25 subscriptions for Rob is peanuts - if those 25 (assuming they did first show up in order to hear more dirt) are now regular readers, it is obviously not got anything to do with what got them to take a look at first.

So yea, Mike, I guess it does boil down to 'don't be boring' one way or another. Flames don't give you readers, just passers-by. Readers stay around because you are interesting consistantly enough for them to come back.

Rob's 400+ readers sure aren't there for the flames - he's just not that good at them, having this terrible problem with actually getting OVER them and getting back to writing about his life.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Pamie, I think you misunderstood my "guilt" remark.

I didn't mean to say that maybe you (or anyone else--my statement was intended to be a general one) felt guilty because of what you did that you couldn't tell your readers, but rather that you may have felt guilty because you wanted to tell them, but couldn't. I know that this is the case with me, anyway.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Rob's 400+ readers sure aren't there for the flames - he's just not that good at them, having this terrible problem with actually getting OVER them and getting back to writing about his life.

That's what you think. Right now, in a top-secret lab in New England, I am using Frankensteinian technology to animate an army of Bendos to go out into the world and destroy my enemies.

So watch your ass.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I like the journals that mention my name. Also, I'll subscribe to journals that offer promotions [right now I'm wearing my new Rob Rummel-Hudson baseball cap].

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I'd have to BE a Bendo to be able to watch my own ass, Rob. Someone else is just going to have to volunteer for that duty.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

When Jolene asked me Have you even THOUGHT about what the reader is doing? What the reader likes? What the reader wants? as far as I know, I'm the only one addressing those questions. I never said Rob picked up 25 readers by pissing people off. I asked Is restraining any display of need on the part of the journaler attractive to most people looking for something to read? and then gave examples to what I observed to make me think this. I gave examples of smart journallers who experienced measurable increases in attention in the form subscription/Diarist Award nominations (form of... a journal notification! shape of... a Diarist Award Nomination!). You can tell me well those are insignificant changes, but I recall Rob mentioning a little over a month ago that he had 300 people on his notify list. That's 300 for 2 years, then 100 in two months. That looks like a steep matriculation curve to me.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

But Mike, that doesn't mean that he gained 100 readers -- although he may have; I think journal readership in general has increased. (Anyone else think so?) As far as I can tell, subscriptions quite often mean that people are looking for dirt. In other words, the same old readers, but now they think they need the inside scoop.

Every time I yell at Dave Van, I get a few subscriptions. Or I did, before I offed my notify list.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

A parent out there has mentioned to me the alternative possibility that Rob's increase on his notify list may have started at the end of last year, with the birth of his daughter. This was brought up before, but it didn't immediately register with me, since I don't exactly relate to the experience. I will contribute the next time this topic comes up (unless this doesn't die), if I have anything new to add.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

This isn't to suggest people without children aren't going to enjoy Rob's journal. The spikes in Rob's readership could be happening, like he said, just because it's time on the s-shaped curve of adoption for Rob's smart, funny site for his notify list to pick up. If I notice more success out there for the behavior I tried to describe... (Well, I already can give you more examples, but I didn't want to risk cornering anyone who has no reason to believe I would corner them. Ok, maybe I won't be returning to this topic.)

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

By the way, how does one know that Rob got 25 new readers for this or 17 unsubs for that? I haven't been reading him all that long, but I don't recall ever reading something along the lines of, "Holy crap, I sent a pile of dog poo to Beth's house and 14 new people subscribed!"

Either I'm not an attentive reader, or someone is watching egroups far too closely.

Besides the fact that this certain journaller's life aggravated the hell out of me, I finally unsubscribed from her list because EVERY SINGLE TIME a new person subscribed, she would email us and let us know... "welcome subscriber number 89!" That just reeks of annoying (and well, so did her life, but I solved that little problem by unsubbing now, didn't I!) If you have a notify list, PLEASE don't remind us every day of how many damn people are on it. If I want to know, I'll go find out for myself.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Besides the fact that this certain journaller's life aggravated the hell out of me

Stasi, you just hit on one reason people read journals: they "love to hate" the writer/ the writer's life/ the writer's style/ whatever. Don't ask me why, or what this says about humanity at large, but I do know many people who pass around URLs with a certain morbid glee.

I'm not saying you did this; I'm just noting that for some people, seeing how exasperated they'll be is apparently part of the draw.

People are weird, f***ed up creatures. Those of you putting your life out there where these freaks are free to comment on it are far braver than I. Thank you, though, for doing it. ------------------------------------------------------------

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Rob mentioned it in an entry, Stasi.

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I found out from my cockroach, raccon, and bear minions, who are amassing on the Connecticut border as we speak. We're talking about a completely poo-proof invasion force here. By morning, the East Coast between New York and Rhode Island will be mine!

Excelsior!

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I did mention it, actually. And it was sort of in the "no one is more surprised than I am" school of thought.

My readership did increase after Julie got pregnant, and then dramatically when the baby was born. It hasn't dropped since then, so far as I can tell, so I guess the key to high readership is to have a kid. If you care enough about hits to do that, then I'll be watching your journal very very closely...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I like the journals that mention my name. Also, I'll subscribe to journals that offer promotions [right now I'm wearing my new Rob Rummel-Hudson baseball cap].

That's right, The Hat of Rob is stylish, one-size- fits-all (unless your head is tiny or freakishly large), stainproof, flame-retardant (good for hanging out in forums), and made of soft material that won't irritate Grandpa's gums.

Quantities are limited, so act now...

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

I've had links from Kymm, Pamie, Beth, Diane ... and I could see the spikes on my weekly stat reports. Certain entries had much higher numbers than usual.

The following week, the numbers returned to normal, perhaps with the addition of one or two readers.

I write well and interestingly. I figure my journal just isn't to everyone's taste. That's fine with me and I have no plans to change it in order to boost readership. The people who do stick with it send me email, never so often that I can't answer it all, and generally have cool or inspiring or kind things to say. Sometimes I wish I had more readers -- my notify list is laughably small -- but when I think about it seriously, I realize the journal is pretty much where I want it to be, I like writing it, and I'm under no pressure to update daily or write in a certain way.

It seems that the longer I keep the journal, the less "confessional" it is because I know the readers well and the people I know in real life might read my entries. That's my only regret -- that I sometimes feel I can't write what I really want. Luckily, it doesn't happen often enough to be a problem. Another advantage of being "boutique."

If I'm happy with my writing, that's the main thing. Good reader response and kind comments from other journallers, that's icing on the cake. I ignore ugly or intrusive email when I do receive it.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Well! If I had known that you all wanted me to aggravate you with my journal...I would have talked about my hemmorhoids and heartburn again! Geez, people, you have to spell it out for me.

(P.S. Just for the record: I don't read journals of people who by actions or by lifestyle aggravates me. All I had to hear was one incident about a drill going off in some kid's eye, and I have run far away from scary journals ever since.)

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I have been reading journals now for I suppose about 2 years had one of my own for about a year now took a hiatus and started a new one. What I notice in life is wherever you got there are going to be popular people and not so popular people. Why people get so upset over it is quit simple. They want to have people like them too. it can be quite frustrating in life when you see people having a great time with close friends and being the life of the event and getting all the attention but there is a reason. They are personable people that people genuinely like being around. Either that or they are spotlight hogs neither is bad just ways that people are. I am not a "popular" journalist although I do converse with some popular writers. It doesnt mean much to me what their reader base is? I mean really who cares. The journals are for you the writer the poster. Not for some 16 year old kid that wanders onto your site looking for green saggy bendo boobies. (for those of you with web logs). It is for our own enjoyment and psychological concious clearing. Its a way to deal with everyday things that if we didnt get out of our system could destroy us. Many people get hung up on the I want to be popular. Why is it so important to be popular? Why beat yourself up over how many readers you have and how many hits you have a day? Live life people, make yourselves happy. Some annonymous person reading your journal may take something away from it and if they do great but if you have no readers at all adn you can work through a serious problem you have within yourself its even better. We all want recognition in life that we are doing a good job at something, whatever that something may be but sometimes i have noticed in this community that people are looking in the wrong places and choosing to fight battles that should have not even become battles in the first place. The biggeest problem i find is that when someone disagrees with someone on something posted they go to a whole reader list with their whining and complaining instead of to that person. Why try to take away or maniupulate readers of a journal because you dont like what that person wrote write them about it but honestly what good is it going to do to write badly bout someone in your joournal its only going to make you lookl ike an ass. Mayby I am overstepping my boundaries here...I will stop now I am tired and I have finals tomorrow. -Karyn of http://www.geocities.com/ponderance_2000

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I see Rob seems to think the 25 subscription over that weekend were a lot.

I don't know if this makes my idea any clearer, but they just reran the Seinfeld, where George is afraid the pianist-girlfriend is going to break up with him, so he does the pre-emptive break up, to give him hand in the relationship. He acts like he no longer needs her, so she'll do what he says to prove she's good enough for him. When Rob, Jim, and John mock the journallers, and the journallers turn around and reward them with Diarist awards, it's like the journallers are like the pianist-girlfriend begging George to stay in the relationship. I don't know why people give up their authority like this.

You also see something like this in the stereotype of the driver who refuses to ask for directions. People are raised like this, to repress any display of need. Popularity then goes to the best examples of this. But that doesn't make any sense, because the demand demonstrated, in awards or readership, itself represents a need. Then Mike comes along and tries to point this out and people start saying popularity is unimportant like some kind of Nike ad. I bring up some basic observations about supply and demand, and people think I just want my name seen here. Someone please try and tell me again how people aren't mindless sheep.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

bahhhhh Bahhh BAAAAHHHHHHH ;) I love sarcasm -Karyn

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

curious as i am to know what the 'mo white and the seven journallers' thing is, i think at this point i am too irritated to go on reading any more of any of you. bleah.

mo

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Ok, I ended the last post deriding behavior I think I understand, and I'm sorry because the Mike only wants to see his name up here shouldn't bother me. I still think George's pianist-girlfriend and the driver refusing to ask for directions analogies still apply to what's been going on lately.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I always, always send an email to a journal writer if their work strikes me as funny, clever, engaging, touching -- whatever. I've written those 'Wow, I love your writing -- thanks for making it available!' kind of emails to a handful of journallers: Gwen, Stee, Wing Chun, Rob, Dana and Pamie. I didn't think much of it, until Dana mentioned someone to me (a journal writer) who she said was writing fan email to high hit journallers, in the hopes of a link. Suddenly, I started worrying that those people I'd written to wouldn't take my words at face value, and would think I was just hoping for a link (I don't have a proper journal, but I did for a few months last year).

But at the end of the day, I don't regret telling those people that I admire their work; if I had JD Salinger or Alain de Botton's email addresses, I'd write them fan mail, too (because I'm too lazy to write to their publishers, and too cynical to believe they'd ever read my letters anyway). I don't think, 'Gee, Gwen is so funny and intelligent and affecting... well, for a web writer.' I just think that the writers I admire are right up there with people who write in other media. Wing Chun, who I mentioned above, is one of the most talented writers I've ever come across, and she has a journal that gets lots and lots of hits -- because it's part of her larger site. I seriously doubt that she gets tons of hits from the 'journalling community,' because she doesn't ever write about them; I doubt that she even gives much of a shit about the existence of such a community (though I'm not trying to speak for her). But there's no doubt in my mind that her journal would be one of the oft-mentioned, oft-linked ones if she made herself a part of that community, either by stirring the shit on diary-l and the forums or by mentioning other journallers all the time. As it is, she does none of that and still gets the hits and retains her dignity... which is cool.

I do think that there is a certain segment of this 'journalling community' who are into reading all the journals just to witness the controversy and other nonsense. Hell, there are journals out there which I read just to feel better about myself (yes, I'm bad). But, in the case of Rob and all the midget uproar, I think the fact is that a lot of people just did not care. I know I didn't. That may make me a bad person, but I read his journal before the noise on these forums, and I can't say that any of what he wrote particularly bothered me; I suspect that I wasn't the only one who had a non-reaction to it all. The fact is, Rob IS an excellent writer. I'd imagine that he got a hell of a lot of hits off of that whole controversy, and many of those people who didn't give a shit about the midget thing were very entertained by his writing -- hence, the subscriptions. And I'm sure a few of those subscribers were mere rubber-neckers, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's his writing which has kept those subscribers to his notify list, long after the whole hullabaloo calmed down to nothing.

In closing, I'd like to say that I rarely read new journals; I'm far too lazy to read stuff that hasn't been given a hearty recommendation by a writer whose opinion I value. Sorry.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Oh, and I know JD Salinger wouldn't have an email address... Maybe I should just send him some frozen peas.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I really really REALLY can't imagine why this won't go away. I thought this was ancient history, at least in internet terms.

Can I get a virtual restraining order? Mike, do yourself a favor. Let it go. Please. Please.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

And the beat goes on. . . . .

http://www.metafilter.com/detail.cfm?link_ID=1518

(the point being, of course, that none of this discussion is original or useful - and since I started this nonsense, I might as well try to end it.)

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

...anyway, to break this down further, the reason rewarding the repression of any display of need (giving diarist awards to people who mock journallers, the pianist-girlfriend clinging to George because he was rejecting her, raising our to feel like losers if they ask for directions when they get lost driving) is because rewarding this kind of activity translates into electing bottom-feeders into elected office, because they demand the lest from the voters.

• We need to do the right thing! Translation: if we stop the genocide of white people in Easter Europe, we won't have to feel guilty for not interfering in genocide among ethnic in Africa.
• We have to write laws protecting the US flag from being burned! Translation: you are helpless to improve your own life by voting for someone else. Fixing what's wrong must come by controlling others.
• We have to protect consumers from genetic engineering in foods! Translation: genetically engineering your food presents about as much danger to you as genetically engineering your dog by breeding it. But your kid sits in front of the TV all day, and he's 30% heavier than is normal for his age group, and it's not your fault for not making him go outside to play.

Then there's the Mike please stop obsessing comments. Translation: I don't benefit from understanding why readers attention goes from one journaller to another. I think people would benefit on understanding why.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

...to break this down further, the negative effect of rewarding the repression of any display of need (giving diarist awards to people who mock journallers, the pianist-girlfriend clinging to George because he was rejecting her, raising our to feel like losers if they ask for directions when they get lost driving) is that rewarding this kind of activity translates into a skill in electing bottom-feeders into elected office, because they demand the least from the voters.

• We need to do the right thing! Translation: if we stop the genocide of white people in Easter Europe, we won't have to feel guilty for not interfering in genocide among tribes in Africa.
• We have to write laws protecting the US flag from being burned! Translation: you are helpless to improve your own life by voting for someone else. Fixing what's wrong must come first by controlling others.
• We have to protect consumers from genetic engineering in foods! Translation: genetically engineering your food presents about as much danger to you as genetically engineering your dog by breeding it. But your kid sits in front of the TV all day, and he's 30% heavier than is normal for his age group, and it's not your fault for not making him go outside to play.

Then there's the Mike please stop obsessing comments. Translation: I don't benefit from understanding why readers attention goes from one journaller to another. I think people would benefit on understanding why.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Mike, I don't think you possess as good an understanding of human nature as you seem to think you do. Whenever you speculate about another person's motives, your theories don't ring true.

Rob and I have had our problems, but I don't think he is "controversial" in order to attract readers. I think he is the way he is. I imagine a few people read him to try to follow the dirt, just like quite a few of my readers come here for the same reason. The vast majority, however, come here because we are (I hope) entertaining. There are other journalers that contain almost nothing but bile, every single day, and they don't have much of a readership.

At this point your endless theorizing really does sound like a personal campaign against Rob, no matter how you may have intended it to come across. I really wish you'd give it a rest.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

An excerpt from http://www.thewebtoday.com/dearsally/ - Just replace "weblogs" with the word "journals" or "diary" or "personal site" and you'll get the picture. (Emphasis added by me.)

"So when will it end for weblogs? The quickest way I can think of is when people start to enforce rigid notions of what is and isn't a weblog. When being linked on someone else's site becomes more important than what you're offering on your own site. When the genre begins to become more important than the reason it became a genre in the first place. When weblogging is considered a form with limits, rules, and rulers. When weblogging spawns its own elite that will miss the next wave of what 'it' is really all about."

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Oh, Mike! You slay me!

Are you really comparing the awarding of diarist.net awards to not stopping genocide in Africa, or the US flag being burned?

It's just a website. Back away from your moniter..slowly, back away.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Now, now. I'm extremely new to the online journalling community, (I started a page a couple of week ago) but I've been reading the journals for awhile (more like 6 months). My observation about the Book of Rob is this: no one is ever going to subsribe to a page just because they got drawn in by some kind of underhanded hook. I read Rob because he's a good writer. Period. The people that get drawn to his page by "controversy" would only read it once if there wasn't anything worth reading.

The issue of popularity is always a touchy one. The journalling community reminds me of the punk rock community that way: you (and by you, I mean "everyone") like to get bent out of shape because someone is more popular than them... they look for extra-musical reasons (on in this case, extra-literary?) why people would like something that doesn't seem likable to you. You come up with some half-baked theory about how they have a secret plan to become popular. Usually, though, the secret plan is that they put the work in.

I've often wondered why I like Bobofett and Book of Rob more than most journals, and I have a few theories, but none of them consist of "oooh, I hope he disses somebody soon!" or "This midget thing is so hilariously un-PC!" or anything outside the pages themselves. The writing is good. It lends itself well to reading online. Looking to other reasons for its popularity is a waste of time - better to look at its positive attributes and see what it is that's affecting people. It isn't (and I'm not just referring to the Book of Rob here, but anything that's popular, especially online) anything really world- shaking. Just a lot of little touches that add up.

-Clint

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

As a reader I enjoy different journals because they amuse me or keep me interested in a certain event. Rob, sorry the baby deal wasn't the carrott.I have been through the experience.I like your humor,you don't have to be politically correct.I think we have gone full circle on politically correctness until we have really fucked some things up.Most comedians are not politically correct.You crack me up, period.I scroll past the music,but enjoy the rest. Dana,you don't give a shit about about offending anyone.I love you!You crack my shit up!Also I scroll past the music,but thats just me.Your daily entries have gotten fewer since Rob hit town.Is he a bad influence? Beth,I like your links.You have almost reversed my redneck ass death penalty views.I like your journal and find you humorous.I like to work in the yard,but not to the extent to read about it.I always wait for your daily entries. Mike,forget about what I just said about the death penalty.I have never seen a worse case of mental masturbation in my life!How many hours a day do you spend contemplating your belly button?Don't read you. These are just a few reasons I read journals.I am sure others have their own and probably conflicting reasons.So what,I could care less.You have fun writing,I have fun reading. Just my 2 cents,I'm sure Mike will write a novel about it.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Pamie, thanks for your posts here. I was very interested in your comments on the realities of having a popular journal.

For what it's worth, I'd been reading Rob for some time before he and Beth had their little dust up. Coincidentally, I suddenly thought "hey, I guess I'll get on his notify list" about the same time. I hadn't gotten on anybody's list up till then and was starting to realize that people write additional stuff to their lists, not just "there's a new entry up" notifications.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Speaking of Pamie's posts ... I wanted to clarify what I said yesterday, because I realized that it could be taken to mean that I think Pamie's journal is fake or superficial or something, and I don't think that at all. She does reveal a lot of herself in her journal (see last night's entry if you don't believe me). But she also keeps a lot of things private, and for a while there it seemed like a lot of her readers weren't acknowledging or respecting that. That's what I meant. She's selective about what she shares.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Rob and I have had our problems, but I don't think he is "controversial" in order to attract readers. I think he is the way he is.

I think he is the way he is also. But Rob being the way he is doesn't make my idea of what makes his site work any less true.

Are you really comparing the awarding of diarist.net awards to not stopping genocide in Africa, or the US flag being burned?

Only in that what makes journallers suckers for rewarding people who dump on them, also makes people suckers for stopping genocide of one ethnicity over the genocide of another ethnicity, or suckers for thinking the lawmakers who champion making flag-burning illegal are good patriots.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Mike - Do you have any idea how bitter and envious you sound? Reread all of your posts in succession. But damn.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Mike, I don't really think anybody but you cares much by this stage. So Rob attracted new readers. Maybe they just surfed on in. We readers are a fickle bunch. And maybe they just surf on out again - it doesn't take much to bore us.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Mike - Do you have any idea how bitter and envious you sound? Reread all of your posts in succession. But damn.

From what I understand bitter and envious still beats it's so just because I say so.

So Rob attracted new readers. Maybe they just surfed on in. We readers are a fickle bunch. And maybe they just surf on out again - it doesn't take much to bore us.

Rob doesn't believe that was true. He was as surprised as anyone that he got such a hit in so short a time.

Mike, I don't really think anybody but you cares much by this stage.

If that's true, then this really should be the last post discussing my idea.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

If anyone responds to that, I will come to your house and kick you in the knee.

Thank you.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Rob doesn't believe that was true.

Mike apparently knows what I believe. Mike sees right into my soul and reads me like a book. Mike will be writing my journal from now on. I'll be renaming it "The Unreadable Book of Rob".

If that's true, then this really should be the last post discussing my idea.

How foolish would I have to be to believe that was true?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Ow. Sorry. Where are my knee guards?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Not part of my campaign against Rob:

I usually don't discuss any personal 800lb. gorilla topics in my journal that I'm not prepared to discuss openly with any stranger. If you have a journal, and you write about the personal 800lb. gorilla topics in your life, a person inquiring about them may just need to hear that discussing these topics in e-mail brings a different kind of pressure than discussing them in journal entries. If the person becomes unreasonable about this, it shouldn't be too hard to point out how you don't feel that you're being heard, and feel comfortable terminating the conversation. It's not that you owe the person an explanation, but I suggest this if the inquiries really bother you.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Reply to Rob's reply to my campaign against him:

Jackie: So Rob attracted new readers. Maybe they just surfed on in.

Mike: Rob doesn't believe that was true.

Rob: Mike apparently knows what I believe.

From this very forum, I'm quoting you, dude:

I did mention [the spike in subscriptions], actually. And it was sort of in the "no one is more surprised than I am" school of thought.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Lizzie, Beth:

Thanks. I feel like the comments are getting lost in a sea of "But why the hell is Rob popular?" posts that seem rather silly to me, since it's pretty obvious to me that Rob got more popular as we all got more popular and on the day that he had the baby everyone was liking congrats to him. That and he kicks ass, so I thought that was why. I don't know. I don't no nuthin' bout no subscriber lists, miss scarlett.

My readership increases weekly. You can see it rise each week. It goes down on holidays. I'm not sure what's driving more and more traffic except that there was that salon article on online journals, and it's just following link after link until you get to the journalers that weren't interviewed. That and chickclick brings traffic to my site quite a bit.

But I don't think that most people resort to flaming people for traffic, and I don't even remember what went down between beth and rob except for i think it had something to do with midgets, but since i read both of them every day, i never noticed that other people were starting to look on.

This forum, however, I've noticed quite the traffic increase. Look at all of the posts each day. I think most of this boost in readerships is due to the journals moving from a private to a more open format. Now you can all discuss amongst yourselves our lives and enter your own stories as well. I love it, but I didn't think it would happen. It was last year at sxsw when I was pitching Squishy for chickclick that they told me I needed to get a sense of community on the site for them to monitor. They said to put up a forum. I thought, "There are no forums on journals that I can see." I put one up that I found through Beth's Garden Report (where people were asking each other questions about gardening), and lo and behold, you can't take a step these days without a journal with a forum. Who knew? I bet those girls at chickclick have no idea what they caused.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Actually, Pamie, there were journals with forums before that, but the forums weren't very popular. A lot of people used Bravenet and a few others, which were slow and unreliable and annoying. Lynda of Parenthesis is the first person I remember who tried that. So we can credit the forum explosion to Greenspun, which is both free and relatively unannoying, and thus directly to my friend Eric, who is the person who told me about Greenspun.

I'm a little nervous about my planned move to UBB later this month, precisely because those early attempts at creating forums failed so miserably. This forum and your forum, Pamie, are both far more popular than the forums at Diarist.net and Metajournals, which makes me think that maybe journal readers really hate UBB. But maintaining this forum is driving me nuts, especially now that it's become Diary-L II: Son of Diary-L. Some days I spend half an hour editing HTML errors when I get up in the morning, and that doesn't include the errors I spot during the day.

But yeah, there's been a steady increase with the journal and weblog, but it's most dramatic in the forum. I just checked the Greenspun stats, and we've got over 9700 messages here. A few months ago we were averaging about 600 messages a month. We're getting over a thousand messages a month now, and we're number seven on the Lusenet list. I have no idea what brought this about; we've had controversy here in the past, but the forum didn't go all wacky then.

I don't know where everyone is coming from, I really don't. I'm glad to have everyone, but it's a little overwhelming sometimes.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

RE: people hating UBBs - I have to say, that's just not the case. Witness Glassdog UBB (http://www.glassdog.org), the Spies.com UBB, and - great googly moogly - the UBBs at various teen domains.

A good UBB happens when you've got an established user/reader base, a vocal and active site manager, and interesting topics. The latter, of course, depends on knowing your audience and catering, to a degree, to them.

Your UBB, Beth, will go like gangbusters. Don't worry.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Yeah, Hissyfit and MBTV work just fine with UBB, and in fact the forum is the main reason people hang out at Hissyfit, since it can go for so damn long without a content update and still be quite popular. It's become a hangout.

I've got 11179 posts and I'm number five. You've gained some incredible stride on the xeney forum, and it amazes me how popular some of your topics become. I bet if you didn't move to UBB for another month, you'd beat my forum, too. You also have people initiate their own topics, which doesn't happen too often on my forum. Sometimes I get complaints that there are now too many things to read on Squishy. That cracks me up.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

That makes me feel better, Gabby. I'd forgotten about Lance's forum. I knew UBB worked with Hissyfit and MBTV and all that, but I thought maybe it was a fluke.

Now to find a cheaper web host that will still allow me to run UBB ...

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I started testing a UBB back in December, and although I never linked to it from my page, you can see it here:

http://fauve.cc/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro

When I make my site move from fauve.cc to astruc.com, I plan to put a little more time into the project. I've used a Bravenet forum since March 1998, and I would have kept on with it, except Bravenet doesn't archive old messgaes.

I didn't want to go the UBB route, because maintaining an active forum takes more energy than I have to give, as Beth pointed out. The thought of coming up with clever questions exhausts me, but I want to have some sort of forum for my readers to talk to each other. It's been enormously rewarding in that regard.

However, in terms of forums, I spend most of my time here, on Beth's forum, and I don't expect that to change once I've gotten my UBB up and running. I've also taken a page from the Spies model, and have considered offering other journallers use of my UBB, like Ceej has done with Spies.

Sara A.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I don't get it...when I read Mike Leung's posts, I hear: "Spaba? Spafa Fluerz imho waby, sansa kitchs togetpi. Ieefga Rob Rummel-Hudson, iyada waffa! Waffa Spaba Fluerz! Eemo EEMO!!"

All I can tell is that these seem to be vaguely negative comments, and nothing more...

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Thank you for showing me you were paying attention. Considering I never mentioned Rob by his full name, what made you think my comments were negative? Spafa Fluerz imho waby, sansa kitchs togetpi or Waffa Spaba Fluerz?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I can't take the credit for forums in journals - Willa was already doing it, and I was inspired by Javina - hers is still going, albeit not all that actively, but she managed to put it to good use during a few months when she was without a computer - she turned her forum into her journal and updated via net-cafe as she could (before weblog and diaryland software made it easy to update via browser).

What initially inspired me about her's (and what I failed to recreate through my own because the type I was using started breaking down so often I lost interest) was the range of subject matter and the willingness to allow room for controversy.

Oddly enough, what both you and Pamie provide, along with your own very active participation. I think you don't give your own efforts enough credit for the success here.

For awhile there, I had a burb of journals with forums, when it was still a relatively odd thing to do, and then it started to catch fire about the same time mine was making me nuts, and I let it slip away. By the time I looked up and thought about trying it again, yours had just gotten started, Beth, and it felt like I'd be copying so I didn't.

I sort of regret that... but truly there doesn't need to be tons of these, and while it may be a pain in the butt for you, I'm very glad yours is here. (and that you get to do the admin, not me! lol...)

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Mike, Considering I never mentioned the price of mangoes in Java, what made you think I was discussing the temperature of spit in Wichita?

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it hurt?

Can God make a rock so big, that He can't lift the spirits of a 7-11 cashier in Centralia, Washington?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pinhead?

If 'Zen' spelled backwards is 'Nez', does that mean all New Zealanders possessing Tao nature are Srednalaez Wen?

~~~ Any else you want figured out Sparky, you just let Jonny know...

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Thanks, "Jonny." Now I know why I'm wrong.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Boy, reading all that at once certainly is an eyeful. But I just gotta talk about me 'cause I'm just like that.

About a year ago, I realized that if I link to someone (especially in a 'go read this' way), they will get monster hits. I love this. Not as an ego thing (no, really!) but because when I think that something is really good, I really want to talk about it; I erally want other people to find it and think it's good, too.

I don't know if maybe people do write me for links, but if they do it rarely works, since we all know how flaky I am about answering my email, I'm even flakier about checking out new journals. Partially because I read too many already.

One or two people have asked me specifically not to link them, because they want to have a lower profile. This kills me, because they are so good that I want to share them, but I respect their wishes.

Recently I have thought that maybe there could be a backlash, like I've been pimping Jessie's Blueberry Hill since it began because I was friendly with her in email before it debuted, and I think it's one of the best new journals around, and it has occurred to me that maybe people would think that I just link her 'cause she's sucking my dick or whatever. But then I decided that I think too much. Because she's not. Sucking my dick, I mean. Anyway.

If I can help a really good writer gain readership, I'm thrilled. Unless they get to be more popular than me, and then they must be destroyed. So, keep your head down, Jessie. Kymm

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I'm just a reader and have no desire to get sucked into what is obviously a huge topic for a lot of people. I do think though that since so much of the discussion centers on why people read certain journals that having another reader perspective might help.

I read Rob and Beth and Melissa and Colleen and Dora and Patrick and Kymm and a few others. Some make me laugh and some shock me with their sorrow. Mostly I consider it just a simple part of my day; read the newspaper, read a few journals, listen to the radio. It's not rocket science people. I don't expect anything and I respond every now and again but not a lot. Mostly i ask for recipes or inquire about a book or movie that is mentioned. If someone writes about something I know about then I might provide my two cents. When someone is having a really tough time then I sometimes let them know that I'm sorry. Along the way I've picked up what I consider to be almost pen pal type relationships with a few journalers. I think that's nice but I'm not looking for it.

To me anyway it seems like you guys are overanalyzing the hell out of this. If Rob writes something I don't like then I skip it. (Sorry to pick on you Rob.) Quite frankly, I love what he says about his book and the music he enjoys and the way he always seems amazed about his daughter. Simply put, I'm freezing my ass of in Alaska and you all provide some welcome diversion. That's all most of your readers want you know, if we were looking for the cure for cancer we wouldn't be reading journals.

Peace..

Colleen

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I think forums like this, and Squishy, are more popular than Diarist.net-type forums because there's no agenda here - it's just a bunch of people chatting.

Pamie, your forum contributors strike me as being a bit younger than Beth's, overall, and this might be why they are less inclined to ask questions. I have to actually stop myself asking questions on both forums for fear of completely boring everybody, but it's difficult when the feedback is so good (I'm currently working my way through about 80 tips for great skin, and I've got a lot of ideas for starting a business stored away).

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Another cool thing about this forum and Squishy's over diarist.net and MetaJournals is that they are really a supplement to daily or near-daily content in other parts of the sites. Diarist.net and MetaJournals have some good stuff, but they're not updated very frequently. The forums alone aren't enough of a draw for me, but a weblog or a journal will get me to a site every day and and then I make side trips to the forums.

It's your sites that are drawing people, not UBB or Greenspun, though they're certainly fun additions.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

What is a 'burb? Is this something like the way Geocities is organized?

(If anyone cares, I almost never visit other sites webrings or any other kind of organization. I visit them because somebody links to them and says they're good. The exception is when I'm just looking for info, like surfing around a Palm users webring.)

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Jenn, Diarist.net was recently updated. With a new Enterview!

Personally, I *love* Diarist.net, very, very much.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Lizzie: A 'burb is *kind* of like a webring. Instead of everyone linking to each other, round robin fashion, they all link to the main 'Burb page where everyone's page is listed.

Example: Believe 'Burb.

(God, I hope I did that Target thing right.=)

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Since when does number of subscribers to notify list equate to overall readership? You can have all kinds of ratios between those who like to subscribe to notify lists and those who read a site on a daily/weekly/whenever basis? Obviously having a buttload of subscribers tells you those people read you, but it doesn't have a reliable corollary to total readership. And why do people get so hurt when someone drops off a notify list? It's only mechanical for some of us, not a means of getting the inside scoop someone (Beth, I think) mentioned above.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Well, if the Journalling Community is that "closed", I know one way to open it up a little...if I can repeat a message I sent some of the journalling lists...

A lot of you know that every seventh of the month I do a sort of monthly thematic weblog, linking to the best on-line journal entries of the past month. I give preference to journals I haven't linked to before. I like to discover journals, and so do my readers. I tend to divide into three categorities...humorous, dramatic, slice-of-life, and then I do another section for whatever suits my fancy that month.

So, if you think you've done a really good entry in the past month, (from the seventh of last month on) email me. If you think your journal is underappreciated and undervisited, email me. If you think someone else's journal or entry is underappreciated and undervisited, email me. If I've linked to you or another journal before, but you think it would be a crying shame if I didn't link to it, that it deserves more publicity--- email me.

Thanks muchly.---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 04, 2000

OK, here is the truth; I am reasonably steady reader of on-line journals and I love the flames! But I think of them as a side order, not a main course.

I think that some of you guys are at your best when you are parrying or thrusting for your on-line lives. Usually, I notice a flame that concerns a site that I read and I follow it to have some fun. I don't go looking for them.

I have to admit, though, that I have completely lost sight of where this Mike Mleung character is going with this stuff about why I (as a reader) read journals. I honestly cant see the connection to the analogies that he has drawn or, really, his point, unless his point is that any publicity is good publicity and flames (and controversy) tend to get linked. Then my reaction is "Duhh. Any more breaking news you need to share?". What is this guys hard-on for Rob anyway? If he wanted to flame someone who behaves badly for just to see an increase in numbers there are better examples. Some close to home. Maybe he doesnt read enough. Maybe Mike spends too much time alone.

I love to read most all of you guys. I have been doing so for some time and I expect to continue for the foreseeable future. I did want to say thank you for all of the effort that you people as a group (you too, Mike) have put into the things that you publish. I dont agree with much of it and some of it stupid, but you guys sure have style. Clearly a hell of a lot more style than me.

Thanks again.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Wow. I feel so flattered now. I have more style than a guy who attributes contention to homosexuality.

I RULE!

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

Umm... I don't know how Gwen saw homosexuality in my post but it was not intentional. This may be my fault as I think she may be referring to my use of the word "hard-on". In this case I am using it as slang for the word "problem" in the hopes of conveying the sense of frenetic urgency that I felt Mike displayed for a while when attacking Rob and some of the other writers.

Sorry if I was not clear, Gwen, but I was not being sarcastic when I said thanks. To me it seems that a lot of effort goes into most of the pages that I visit. Even if I do not agree with the sentiments or position that the writer puts forth I can recognize the effort it takes put it together, express it coherently and publish it on-line.

I also gave my thanks because, and I am sure that I am not alone in this, I have learned a lot from reading I have done. I have learned better ways of communicating, what not to do in certain situations and I have even learned something about myself by asking myself how I would react to some of the situations that I read about.

As far as having style is concerned what I meant is that for all that I have learned I still cant match, or come close to, the level of creative writing that I have found on some on-line journals. I really admire some of the writing styles that I have come across regardless of their message.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2000

I have to admit, though, that I have completely lost sight of where this Mike Mleung character is going with this stuff about why I (as a reader) read journals. I honestly cant see the connection to the analogies that he has drawn or, really, his point, unless his point is that any publicity is good publicity and flames (and controversy) tend to get linked. Then my reaction is "Duhh. Any more breaking news you need to share?". What is this guys hard-on for Rob anyway? If he wanted to flame someone who behaves badly for just to see an increase in numbers there are better examples. Some close to home. Maybe he doesnt read enough. Maybe Mike spends too much time alone.

They made a similar point in Gladiator that I did: If you give the people death, they will love you for it. If Ridley Scott understands this, I don't imagine I am so alone as those of you who keep protesting an idea you claim you don't understand. To your claim that my idea is unoriginal, by virtue of drawing analogies in the first place, I can only reply, "Duhh..."

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Umm... I don't know how Gwen saw homosexuality in my post but it was not intentional. This may be my fault as I think she may be referring to my use of the word "hard-on". In this case I am using it as slang for the word "problem" in the hopes of conveying the sense of frenetic urgency that I felt Mike displayed for a while when attacking Rob and some of the other writers.

Damn, painting sexual attraction for Rob as an analogy for deficiencies you see in me? You're not going to start telling me how some of your best friends are women, are you, D.J.? Thanks for making everything so clear.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

You guys don't watch The Sopranos, do you? People on that show are always speaking of how so and so has a hard on for somebody else, meaning that they're planning to get into a fight with them.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Mike Leung: Fact, Myth or Just Plain Annoying?

I vote for annoying. (and lacking the gene for humor)

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Thank you, Lizzie. You said in one sentence what it took me a paragraph to say. Although, Mike still seems to think that there was an attempt to attach sexual meaning to my post. Maybe he should read the posts here a little slower so that he doesn't keep missing the point.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

You got me, DJ. I don't watch the Sopranos. I guess if mobsters say it, it must be ok. We all know no machismo goes on there.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Yeah, really. Oh, it was on the SOPRANOS! It can't be a slur, then! It's *critically acclaimed*!

Personally, I never saw Rob's site until he called Dave Van a midget. I will plainly admit that I went to Rob's site in the hopes of seeing cattiness. No, I didn't join the notification list. However, I can imagine that people were attracted to the way Rob makes fun of people suffering from achondroplasia (or whatever it is he does.)

Mike gets on these forums and posts a statement about journals, including Rob's, receiving attention for negativity. Then Rob's fans get on and start protesting that they read Rob for his trenchant writing, NOT any flame wars in which he's associated.

And while you're saying this, you're personally attacking Mike -- calling him names and speculating about his social habits.

Yeah... you people are so classy. You'd NEVER read a journal for flames! You're just a bunch of connoisseurs of lovely prose, aren't you?

Whatever.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2000

Derric, I suggest you go start an online diary IMMEDIATELY to capitalize on all these flames!

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Apparently Gwen is also lacking the humor gene.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Oh, no! What am I gonna do with all of these erections?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

It's just a good thing I've been banned from this forum, so that people can hold these intelligent discussions. Missing humor gene. Brilliant.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Yeah Joy, that's right. Gwen's missing the humour gene ... it's not like she's famous for her wit all through the www or anything like that ...

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Hey! Why did that format correctly? How the heck did you do that?

If we were running UBB now, I would close this thread. Instead, I'm just going to implore you all to please drop whatever the fuck the subject is at this point. I'm going to give you two new topics today, and you can argue there for a while, instead. Okay?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Mike: Rob gets more hits than you because he is a better writer than you, dispite his silly car.

Beth: Since your new topics involve strings hanging from body cavities and other icky stuff, I'll just stay here, thank-you-very- much.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Very good, Jim. That was the easy part. Now here's the harder part: why do good writers like Rob and Jim get respect from other diarists only after disrespecting them?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Gwen's famous all over the "www"? Who knew?

Leung...what's with your obsession with Rob?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Mike, I can speak only for myself: I like writers like Rob and Beth because they are some combination of entertaining and informative, and because their journal entries form a story that I like to follow.

These writers tend to be fun to read no matter what they are writting about. If they "disrespect" someone, they do it with good writing. It is the writing that draws the readers, not the "disrespect".

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Yes, of course. Plenty of people read Mein Kampf, but it doesn't mean they like Hitler.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Rob gets more hits than you because he is a better writer than you

Didn't sound like you were only speaking for yourself when you said this. Glad to know we can all count on your intuitive consistency, Jim.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Thanks for liking my site, Jackie, even in spite of my disability.

Ms. Rothke, I'm sure Jackie didn't mean that my wit would merit YOUR exalted notice. Tee hee! I'd never be so bold as to hope for THAT!

Do you study genetics? I always thought bitchiness was a recessive trait. Do both your parents carry it, then?

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

tee hee? Yes, I suppose they do

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

"Didn't sound like you were only speaking for yourself when you said this"

No Mike, of course I wasn't speaking only for myself, I was also speaking for the midget who lives in my armpit.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Midget in armpit! Now THAT'S humor. Here's a perfect DNA sample for you right here, Joy.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Gwen: You may be funny; I don't think so. I may be incisive; you don't think so. But, you can stop trying to convince me.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Man, I've been saying for weeks now that this forum would be just exactly like Diary-L if only we had ourselves a little Joy Rothke in the mix. Now I can die happy. Or just die; I haven't decided which yet.

I just love me some Joy.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Joy, I don't know you or care about you. You made catty remarks about me twice. I responded in kind.

Feel free to air your complaints about me in email. If don't care to correspond, that's fine, too, but please don't imagine that your bitchery can run me off these boards.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Just Plain Annoying. Does Anyone Disagree?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Jim, it only took you five days to come back with midget who lives in my armpit? Did you think of that one all by yourself, or did you have to enlist an A Team of entertaining and informative journalers to help you with the good writing?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

I pity the fool who disrespects the A Team of journalers! Don't make me come over there!

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Mr. T's Journal: Entry 689. After a long day at work, I stopped at the store to pick up some tuna for dinner and some Diet Pepsi. Some fool cut off my van on the drive home. ->:o(] I pitied him.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Gee Joy, if there was ever a mis-named poster than you're her.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Why thank you Jackie. I'll attempt to be as charming as you in the future, and exhibit more "jackieness".

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Now, don't be silly about it ... (tongue firmly in cheek) - just don't be so grumpy, eh?

I kind of like the idea of Jackieness though, and I bet the posse of Jackies would go for it. Jackie D? Jackie R?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000