It appears that a slew of Hillary Clinton supporters’ blogs (which are now more anti-Obama) are seeing themselves tagged as spam by Blogspot. Seems the process is pretty simple and requires just a bit of cut and paste. Enough of these and a blogger can be locked from posting onto their own site until a real live person can review the site and clear it as non-spam.

Sneaky.

As a former Blogger user who hosted via Blogspot, I really find that the service is behind the curve these days. WordPress’s features allow site administrators to really do more with their sites, from usability to tracking spam and dirty IPs from abusive commenters. I can’t say that their Terms Of Service would make it harder for such a lockdown to occur, but this certainly doesn’t make Blogspot very appealing for someone looking to enter the blogging arena.

7/1 UPDATE: The NYT chimes in and includes this tidbit from Google, who owns Blogger and BlogSpot:

On its Web page explaining the “flag” feature, Google says that “it can’t be manipulated by angry mobs. Political dissent? Incendiary opinions? Just plain crazy? Bring it on.” On Monday, Google would not explicitly rebut the idea that it had been tricked but said that the cause of the temporary blockage appeared to be elsewhere. “It appears that our anti-spam filters caused some Blogger accounts to be blocked from creating new posts,” Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich said in a statement. “While we are still investigating, we believe this may have been caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the ‘Just Say No Deal’ network of blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam. We have restored posting rights to the affected blogs, and it is very important to us that Blogger remain a tool for political debate and free expression.”

Doug over at Below the Beltway has a good roundup of what’s really going on with the Associated Press’s “attack” on blogs and fair use.

The Jeffersoniad Blog Coalition will be hosting a hospitality suite at the Republican Convention May 30th - 9PM - 1 AM in room B19 at the Richmond Convention Center. All of this is made possible by a generous sponsorship by Rhumb Line and Speaker Bill Howell.

If you’re at the convention, please stop by for some dessert and coffee and some conversing with Virginia’s finest bloggers and me.

According to the Guardian, 46% of web users think bloggers should sign on with a code that reflects laws on defamation and intellectual property, while only 32% of bloggers supported it.  More interestingly, only 4% of users opposed while 36% of bloggers thought the idea was bad, bad, bad.

The804.com has a good rundown on Richmond media and blogs and it’s hard to argue with the assessment.

A BIGresearch Simultaneous Media Survey says bloggers are typically younger white dudes who make less money but are smarter than those who don’t blog.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling has proposed the 2008 Blogger Protection Act.  TechRepublican has more.

Considering I run RedStormPAC, it’s only natural that I’d scope out what ActBlue is up to and read their blog. Today they made a post that popped up in my feedreader but it’s not on their site anymore. It’s brilliant enough to where I feel compelled to share. More after the break. Read the rest of this entry »

How To Pitch To Bloggers.

Blogging seems to be a good anti-depressant:

According to a new study by researchers at Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne who were looking into the psychological benefits of blogging, bloggers tend to feel a greater sense of connectedness to a particular community, and feel that they have a larger social support system behind them compared with those who do not blog. Using social networks such as MySpace and Facebook, the researchers found, also “lifted the mood of all participants (of the study) in some way.”

Viewed in this light, blogging could be prescribed as a potentially cheaper (and drugs-free) way to help people overcome a feeling of isolation.

Oh, look, another blogging ethics kick.  But I’ll keep it brief.

I can understand people surfing the web using proxy services.  Don’t want folks to know what you’re doing and all that, that’s fine, privacy rules.  But commenting by proxy just stinks to high heaven.

J’s Notes will not allow proxy comments.  I’m sorry.  You can comment anonymously, that’s fine, but if you use a proxy, you’re hiding a little too much and I won’t have it here.

Just as blog posting should be above the board, so should comments.  Those participating in the conversation should be honest if they hope to be heard.

How can it be the 50 most powerful blogs and not have J’s Notes on it?  Pffft.

Scott White asks bloggers: how far are you willing to go for full disclosure? The question is important and reminds me that I have no disclaimer here on J’s Notes, even though the issue has come up in the past during conversations I’ve had with others.

Scott uses Mitch Radcliffe’s ZDNet disclosure as an example of a lot of information and maybe too much. Though maybe it isn’t, considering that bloggers at ZDNet may find themselves blogging about any number of things which Radcliffe might be involved in. So while intensive, Radcliffe’s disclosure is exactly the type of stuff he needs to reveal if folks are going to take him and his blogging seriously.

In Scott’s case, a short and sweet disclosure is all he needs since he probably won’t find himself blogging about a business he may have investments in or about any number of things he may have a personal vested interest in. Aside from his own politics, which he defines just fine.

This connects directly with a blogger giving his audience enough information to be able to evaluate the source. If people are going to trust the blogger and his information, they should probably know if the blogger has any vested interest in what they’re talking about. Or whether or not this opinion is their own or the product of a paycheck or other outside influence.

How much one says in such a disclaimer is up to the blogger and the subject matter they find themselves discussing. For many there are ways to be brief instead of posting a full resume that simply acts to show off, but for others you may find a disclosure the length of your arm in order to be all encompassing.

In the case of J’s Notes, it doesn’t have to be much:

Any opinions or information on J’s Notes reflects the opinions and thoughts of Jason Kenney and do not necessarily represent the opinions or or official policies of RedStormPAC or WVCW.

What more do you need?

4:50 p.m. NOTE: After receiving notification from readers seeking some clarification I realize that this post might be a whole lot vague.  For starters, this is concerning a pseudonymous political blog.  I do know what blog is being discussed but want to avoid naming names as everyone else has.  That said, I think by reading Jane’s original post you can get a feel for the gist of the site being discussed as it fits a certain “type” of blog that I’m trying to address generally.  What I see at issue here is pseudonymous blogging and how it creates an ethical dilemma for bloggers and blog readers.  This applies beyond political blogs and continues on a thread I’ve harped on quite a few times in the past: ethical blogging.  I’m sorry if my original post and title misled anyone or brought folks here through what may appear as less than honest means.  If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me directly.

No one’s naming names, but Jane at Conservativa has gotten the ball rolling on wondering about the face(s) behind a blog that’s relatively new to the Virginia Blogosphere:

1. The visual format is standard/well-done. No rookie mistakes at all. But also no graphics, photos, etc. to lend personality.
2. Writing quality overall too good to be from an inexperienced writer.
3. Overall tone of the writing: uneven. Mostly boilerplate, but then it flares into mini-rants.
4. Peculiar set of RSS feeds and links in the blogroll. Indicative of a wish to get read and get links in return, rather than expressive of a person with a point of view.
5. It has been up and running less than a year.
6. The author is pseudonymous.

(There’s one more thing which I have not listed, and it’s the real giveaway). The presence of all these things together sets off my B.S. detector.

Scott, Jim Hoeft and Jim Riley all have brief takes as well.

Now, while there shouldn’t be any blogging police asking for a new blogger’s papers, this issue is quite vital to the future of the blogosphere.

Transparency.

There are times when writing under a pseudonym is necessary and makes sense: whistle blowing, impact on employment/day-to-day livelihood, etc. But blogging under a pen name should also be greeted by bloggers and readers alike with a certain level of suspicion. Especially when the blogger comes out the gate appearing to want the widest audience possible with only the slightest hint of actual substance on who is really behind the blog.

The problem with this type of blogging is how the rest of the world perceives it. Many people who don’t regularly do blogs don’t know what to make of a pseudonymous site. Many actually accept this as the norm, and dismiss blogging as a result. Others rely on it too much, which then allows the author to be less than honest in their purpose, creating stories and the perception of actual news where there otherwise might be nothing but smoke and mirrors.

There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from creating a blog under a false name and stating an outright lie. There is nothing preventing that same person from creating five other blogs under other false names that repeat this lie, that comment on the site to make it seem like this lie has feet, that sock puppet with one another to give the perception of meat when there’s nothing there.

Not that this level of abuse has been seen (yet), but this is the snowball the blogosphere faces if it does not question its sources, whether they be other blogs or anonymous e-mails that pop up in the inbox.

Pseudonymous blogging has its place, and many pseudonymous bloggers have been somewhat successful, establishing themselves either through their reasoned work on their blogs or the poorly kept secret of their real name. But look across the Virginia blogosphere and you’ll see the large number of bloggers who started under a pseudonym and now blog under their real name. Transparency has won out because we’ve been able to assess them, evaluate them, criticize them, and ultimately welcome them into our circles. Even blogging by elected officials and campaigns has been welcomed.

But a healthy dose of skepticism is bound to great new pseudonymous bloggers and rightfully so. A lot of the Virginia political blogosphere is built on a two-way street paved in trust and respect. You have to earn your pen name. You have to earn our trust. And you have to be honest with us so we can do that.

Too many of us take this blogging thing way too seriously to willingly allow it to be abused for short term political gain.

Barack Obama may be the hottest politician online, but when it comes to unfiltered Internet commentary, nobody beats John McCain.