Starship Asterisk*

answered yes today, let's see what I said back then... hmm, looks like I did not change my mind :)

A web log APOD is, a blog it is not.

So what do blogs have that APOD does not ???

Since this question boils down to opinion, and given an equivalent validity to "opinion" I'd just like to register mine with "NOT a blog". I've enjoyed APOD for a LOOOOONG time, and this site performs a wonderful service without falling prey to "junk".

My understanding of a weblog (blog) is: a running account with random updates.
APOD publishes one picture per day; if they published all submitted, it would be a blog.

I think the key characteristic that distinguishes a blog is the possibility of reader comments on the material originally posted by the site owner/operator. Not all blogs avail themselves of that possibility, but most do and all blogging software (AFAIK) offers such a feature.

So if that's true, then clearly APOD by itself is not a blog. But just as clearly, APOD plus this Starship Asterisk* forum is, at least in combination, a blog.

Rob

I agree with geckzilla. It just doesn't fit the format. Could APOD conveniently host [url=http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=18291][b][i]Carnival of Space[/i][/b][/url]? Any [b][i]blog[/i][/b] could.

Perhaps people resist seeing APOD as a blog because blogs are often thought of (or at least, I often think of them as) self-serving and/or indulgent, and APOD just isn't that way. The APOD editors aren't giving us their thoughts on something, their viewpoint, but rather, they are showing us something that belongs to all of us and none of us: the universe. Blogs are usually inward-looking, looking into the thoughts of the blogger, whereas APOD is outward-looking, but often has the effect of making people look in themselves (and realize how small they and their concerns are). Blogs highlight the small; APOD shows us the large.

APOD's format simply isn't one that is recognized as a blog. The structure and content is there, but the format is simply wrong. It's like the difference between a newspaper and a magazine. For the sake of argument, say you have a newspaper and a magazine with identical content. It's easy to say that most people would consider one a magazine and the other a newspaper depending on what kind of paper it's printed on and whether it's bound at the corner or just stacked together in sections rather than on what is actually being presented.

I may check in once a week, rather than every day, but to me, APOD is APOD. Defies classification!

At the bottom of each APOD page is:

[quote]< | Archive | Index | Search | Calendar | [b]RSS[/b] | Education | About APOD | Discuss | >[/quote]
Emphasis mine.

Sort of. It is a daily Internet log - one that I follow more than any blog. But a blog, to me, needs an RSS feed that I can subscribe to.

To me, the APOD webpage and the Starship Asterisk with its structured categories/forums to support the APOD and allow a gathering place to interact with other people interested in/involved with astronomy and space exploration is so far above the simple little blog that I maintain that I can't think of it as a "blog".

I am so very grateful for this effort on the part of the team that daily publishes something in this field to think about. I would not be able to have access to such a knowledgeable and interesting group of people from around the world here where I live if it were not for APOD, et.al.

I used to get so put off by some of the comments that the Digg community would make about an APOD picture; I'm glad that the link to it was discontinued.

I don't know what category APOD and SA fall into but I'm sure that they are an example of some of the best that the internet has to offer!

To me a blog is a log on the web, it does not have to be daily, and it does not need replies or postings from many people, that is a forum :wink:

APOD certainly is a log on the web, and I have been reading it pretty well daily since about April of 1996 :D

Thank you Robert J. Nemiroff and Jerry T. Bonnell - Great Job :!:

I voted that it is not a blog b/c most blogs tend to be slanted in an adverse manner. Of course, we can not avoid "slanting" in our endeavors but starship asterisk is about as "neutral" as a community forum can be. It's one of the reasons for enjoying it and letting it consume part of one's time each day.

I voted no because the common understanding of a blog is that it's centered on one person's (or a small group's) specific viewpoint. The only viewpoint that APOD espouses is that astronomy and space are freakin' awesome. Also the lack of direct commentary on the main page takes it out of the usual blog arena. It's a website with a commentary forum attached to it.

I voted that APOD is not a blog because, I feel that the spirit of a blog is information posted on the internet that includes the bloggers slant or opinion on the subject. I don't get that from the information that accompanies the pictures on APOD.
On a side note, APOD being what it is; showing the wonders of the universe and the accomplishments of us humans, I imagined the Creator placing palm to forehead over the fact that this forum is discussing whether APOD is a blog or not! :wink:

[quote="ExNihilo"]In a broad definition it is a blog, but I still voted "no" because it is just doesn't have the look and feel of a blog. This look and feel notion is something the Wikipedia definition didn't really include.[/quote]

+1

I think the poll needed a 3rd option:

"Is APOD a forum with a community of users who share/exchange views on General Astronomy topics"

Looking up at the top of this forum page, I see:
"Starship Asterisk*
APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum"

Like others, I see a Blog as one sided, the blogger posts/rants/whatever, and then people post comments to the blogger, and on some blog pages those need to be approved before the general public sees them.
(think Gizmodo......)
However, blogs don't allow "original" posts, while forums do, hence I voted "No".

The wiki definition of a Blog needs refinement.

In a broad definition it is a blog, but I still voted "no" because it is just doesn't have the look and feel of a blog. This look and feel notion is something the Wikipedia definition didn't really include.

Okay, so I voted using gut instinct and my own preconceived notion of what a blog is.

Yes, APOD is online.
Yes, APOD definitely teaches.

But blogs aren't always factual, well researched, awe-inspiring or demonstrative of immense human resourcefulness and imagination. APOD is all of these, and therefore I don't consider it a blog. I consider it a place where, almost every single day, I can see the beauty of God's creation displayed in a way that I cannot, on my own, attain. Though the individuals who produce and post these amazing photographs may not intend it so, it strengthens my faith.

A blog being an online journal, this is a blog. A local TV station has a "weather blog" on its website, and frequently refers to it by that name. It is informational, updated regularly, and available to anyone to read.

If blogs have to be "rude, crude, and socially unacceptable", then I would have to change my vote to no. Since they don't, I say yes.

[quote="Raufu"]I agree - according to the Wikipedia definition, APOD should be cast as a blog. The trouble is that in use, the word blog has subtly altered its definitionand is tending towards something approaching spam - that is - it tends to express views and influence recipients, and APOD is definitely NOT in this category!
It is informative, neutral, interesting and educational, but NOT political or influencing, and this takes it out of the developing blog meaning in my view.
And above all - it is FUN!!
Many thanks to all the team who work on this project.[/quote]


I think Raufu has touched on something, and viewing the results so far, perhaps many would tend to agree. Even if only subconciously. And that is 'blog definition'. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say it's spam-like, but I would say that there are blogs which have forums or 'comments' sections where the contributors can be confrontational, rude, or even outright vitriolic, giving blogs in general that sort of 'bad taste in the mouth' reputation. And perhaps those that answered the poll as a negative - that is: no, APOD is not a blog - do not want that sort of reputation associated with APOD.
Here at APOD, most contributors are able to refrain from engaging in name calling, ad hominem-slinging, etc. and it keeps the forums an inviting place. For me anyway. Yes, there are [i]spirited conversations [/i]- :lol: - but so far as I've read, there have been no references to anyone's mama. (Unless I missed it?) :wink:


IMO, if APOD is a blog, it's the best one.



:saturn:

If not a blog, what else would it be?

I think it kind of depends on WHY you are asking. For me, it's not a blog, although I understand completely why some people consider it is. I think it's all about how you consume the content, and I consume APOD in a different way to the blogs I read, so I don't consider it in that way. For me, it's one of a few '... Picture of the day' sites that I am presented with on my browser's home screen when I sit down at my desk in the morning.

What is the context behind the question, are you asking if APOD should move towards a more 'blog-like' presentation of content? For what it's worth, I don't think you can do any wrong, the content is too awesome to be impacted much by the way you choose to present it. Whatever works for you!

Jim

yeah, definitely a blog. THE BLOG. :D

In terms of posting or adding a description and a picture each day, yes, I would agree that APOD is a blog. However, in terms of sharing the discussion with the community online (and/or from the community to their friends via other social means), APOD does not fulfill the requirement as a blog. Still, some blogs do not allow comments and are blogs, so I will tend to say that APOD is a blog, though I would like to be able to share the post to my friends without copying the link. Does that sound schizophrenic enough for you? Cheers! Long live APOD!