by Matt Barr

In case you're not sick of taxonomies

The process of nominating the best blog post I've read in the previous week for The Watcher's Council has got me thinking about the types of blog posts and how often, to me -- and I don't know if I'm right or not -- even a fine blog post loses some luster if it's derivative. Let me describe the types of blog posts I mean so I can better explain.

Original material
A blog post which originally reports something newsworthy or thought-provoking is, I think everyone can agree, something to be celebrated and appreciated. Not all blogs aspire to this; many very good ones are straight "pundit blogs" that attempt to identify and link to important and thoughtful material on the Web. (BOTWT is probably the best example of this, even if it's not 100 percent clear it's a blog. Prof. Reynolds, if you prefer.) And that's fine. Many blogs, like this one, try consciously to avoid doing that -- going so far as to correct lapses -- and concentrate instead on providing unique insight or analysis. Maybe that's why I put this kind of post at the top. Think of a great original blog post as a Lennon/McCartney song, and the rest of this makes more sense.

Derivative but with value added
A post which summarizes material in someone else's post or article but which adds original material or analysis to it is also often worthwhile. If an original material post, described above, is like a Lennon/McCartney song, a derivative but with value added post is like a cover version of that song which adds its own personality and reason for listening, and may expose the song to a new audience. Like I've Just Seen a Face by Holly Cole, or With a Little Help From My Friends by Joe Cocker. You could do worse! The blog-to-idea ratio being what it is (because of the enormous number of bloggers, not any dearth of ideas), most very good blog posts are this kind.

Derivative and better
Some posts pick up on information or analysis in someone else's post and shine the light of greatness on it. The original writer deserves all sorts of credit for dredging up the subject, but the derivative post writer should be congratulated, too, if they did it right. This is beyond value added, it's simply done better. There aren't many Lennon/McCartney covers this applies to but think Revolution by Grandaddy.

Me too!
A post the entire substance of which is that there's this other post, or article, elsewhere on the Web that you should read. These can be valuable, as I say, particularly at pundit blogs, but at times otherwise engaging, thought-provoking bloggers resort to this either because they haven't got anything to say at the moment or erroneously think readers come to their site, and not an actual pundit blog, to learn about worthwhile material elsewhere. (Often, but not always, these posts are made under the same title.) On our Lennon/McCartney continuum, these are soundtracks or compilations that include a Beatles song. And not even an original! Swell, unless you already have the Beatles album.

Derivative and you can't figure out why
Occasionally, bloggers will reproduce posts or ideas from posts that aren't exactly echo chamber-worthy. I've done this, and I'm sure that post of mine wasn't the first example that popped into your head. Lena Horne covering Rocky Raccoon is where we're at here.

Derivative style, without much substance
Occasionally bloggers will try to channel better-read blogs through one or more of their posts. They write something they might not have written otherwise, in a voice that's not theirs, and you realize that that makes two good reasons not to read the blog. Even if this works very occasionally, unless you post in your own voice about things that interest you you won't have sustained success or readership. Ask Sharona.

Synthesis
Posts can seek out and collect a number of links or seemingly separate materials with an overarching theme, and themselves be very valuable and informative. This is especially true if you wouldn't have necessarily seen the connection yourself, and the link-collecting blogger gives you a new insight in that regard. I might need to give a non-Beatles example of this more than some of these others, so here, from the Crank. UPDATE 8/15: See also this post by Cal Lanier. Your Lennon/McCartney equivalent is probably an original, unpublished Beatles mix of some sort.

In following threads of thought around the blogosphere, the question most often presented is whether a post that's derivative but with value added can be better than the original from which the material originated. (The question second most often presented is something like "how many blogs are going to link to this same thing, for crying out loud?") You can argue either way. Still, I'd rather see the original post be acknowledged, even as good as a derivative post might be. That certainly doesn't mean you should ignore a derivative post or it should be denigrated, provided it adds to the discussion.

Browse books from Amazon.com: