Blogs Wane as the Young Drift to Sites Like Twitter

Its like saying right in the middle of the article: "Oh, nevermind."

I'm reminded of this comment from HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2012130:

I think there are two ways to blog: altruistically or narcissistically. If you're blogging altruistically you're blogging for others primarily and yourself secondarily. If you're blogging narcissistically you're mostly blogging for yourself.

Most of the great blogs that I visit are all done altruistically. They are well maintained, post useful information, and very rarely waste my time. They also require a huge amount of effort on the part of the blogger because they really have to do work to gather and present interesting and useful information for their readers.

What a lot of the press has referred to as blogging is "narcissistic." Instead of coming up with interesting information and vetting it for their readers they mostly just spew whatever thoughts they had that day onto the page. It doesn't take a huge amount of effort, but the signal to noise ratio is also very low.

It's really hard to write stuff that will be interesting to people who don't know you and have no real connection to you. I know because I write a book blog called The Story's Story at http://jseliger.com and know that producing at least one meaningful post a week is difficult. If writing in such a way that other people actually want to read your work weren't so difficult, we wouldn't have nearly as many professional writers as we do.

If your goal is mostly to bask in the relative adulation of others, you can probably do it more efficiently via Facebook. If your goal is mostly to communicate something substantive, you're going to find that it's not five or ten times harder than posting a 140-character message on FB or Twitter—it's 50 or 100 times harder. Twitter is easier than "A list of N things": http://paulgraham.com/nthings.html and "A list of N things" is easier than a blog post and a blog post is easier than an essay.

People who want to be real writers (or filmmakers or whatever) in the sense that people with no current relationship of any kind will find their work useful will probably still blog. But most of those who think they want to be real writers will probably find out precisely how hard it is to come up with useful and interesting stuff regularly. Then they'll quit, and the people who remain will be the ones who have the energy and skill to keep it up and write things people want to read.

In 2006, 28% of teens ages 12-17 and young adults ages 18-29 were bloggers, but by 2009 the numbers had dropped to 14% of teens and 15% of young adults. ... Additionally, teens ages 12-17 do not use Twitter in large numbers – just 8% of online teens 12-17 say they ever use Twitter, a percentage similar to the number who use virtual worlds. This puts Twitter far down the list of popular online activities for teens and stands in stark contrast to their record of being early adopters of nearly every online activity.

Give me a well-written blog or good community forum any day.

there's nothing in the article to support that headline. unless you think that facebook, tumblr, wordpress are "like twitter"

There is nothing wrong with being a communications platform, but it's not a publishing platform and there are certainly needs for sending < 140 character messages, note the popularity of SMS

The NYT would like to see more information consumers and fewer producers. Blogs may be declining as a percentage but they are certainly not declining in number. It's just much easier to run a cat blog with twitter + twitpic than wordpress. There always were far more cat bloggers than people publishing interesting content. The only difference is that now they have a platform tailored more to their needs.

In other news "old media" continually misreports news in "new media".