Talk:Blog/Archive 7

There is a widespread and bizarre deficiency among wikipedia editors, which makes them put citations in ridiculous places. To the uninfected, it seems completely obvious that you put a citation after the fact that it is sourcing, and not before or in the middle. But once infect you think they can go anywhere. Here in this article I've found the most preposterous example I've ever seen:

The Iraq war saw bloggers taking measured and passionate points^[1] of view that go beyond the traditional left-right divide of the political spectrum.

But the article is protected so I can't correct it. How about someone puts the citation after the fact, instead of bizarrely in the middle not just of a sentence, not just of an idea, not just of a clause but in the middle of a three word phrase? And then how about you find out which poor soul decided that was a sensible place to put it, track them down, take them to one side and tell them to get help?

And then how about unprotecting the article? There can be no serious justification for it being protected for three and a half years. 200.120.206.115 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If we don't put citations where they are, we wouldn't know about which facts they are supporting. As for page protection, this page has been a very frequent spam and vandal target, given the high visibility of this topic.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

First, note that I've changed your section title on this talk page, as there is no reason for the vulgarity. That being said, your concerns directed my attention to that sentence. At first, I was just going to move the citation, because you are correct that it would need to be moved at least to the end of the clause, and more likely to the end of the sentence. But then I actually read it, and the associated reference, and realized that the whole thing needed to be removed. While this is an article about blogs, that does not mean the sources can actually be blogs, at least when talking about general trends. That blog post didn't in any way support the sentence it was attached to--rather, it was an alleged example of a "measured and passionate point"...which, of course, is pure original research. If someone can find a reliable source that verifies the statement in question, it can be re-added, but it can't be there as it was.

However, I will say that your overall tone is unhelpful...please try to be a little more respectful of other editors, per WP:CIVIL. I do have to agree with Jasper Deng that unprotecting this article is simply not an option--that will just result in us making a dozen reverts a day of people adding in links to their own blogs. If you spot other problems in the article, just open a new thread here, use the template {{edit semiprotected}}, and politely explain what should be changed and why. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, just before I wrote this, it turns out that another admin did unprotect the page. Well, if it gets bad, I suppose we can just re-protect it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I like being vulgar. I'm a very vulgar person. Also I think that being "nice" and being "civil" has been extremely ineffective in encouraging proper adherence to standards of quality. Wikipedia is getting more amateurish by the day and it's at least partly because this business of "civility" is in practice used to discourage any criticism at all. But you already know me and my views in that respect.

Anyway, fair enough about the reasons for protection but surely it should almost always be a temporary measure. It would surprise me very much if this was so relentlessly targeted as to need permanent protection. But I am quite prepared to be surprised.

Jasper Deng, you appear to be claiming that all references are perfectly well placed just as they are. I don't think you actually can have read the example I posted. You use a very patronising "we" to attempt to justify the placement of a citation within a phrase. And then it turns out on closer inspection that it doesn't even support the fact that it is within. I'm glad that Qwyrxian took the time to examine the matter. 200.120.206.115 (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess what: If you can't be civil, you don't belong here. That's one thing about Wikipedia that isn't like other sites.

Now I see it more closely I think the citation could be moved, but not to the very end of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Civility also includes reading an example before posting a patronising response to it. 200.120.206.115 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and I'm not gonna discuss this further (WP:STICK).Jasper Deng (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It absolutely does. If you can't see the incivility in passing patronising comments when you haven't even bothered to read the example, you're got problems. 200.120.204.192 (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think interactive blogging websites like Blogger have done anything to make the distinction less apparent. This is the edit I'm talking about.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't cite Blogger. I merely was trying to make explicit what is already implicit in the balance of the introduction. (See the following paragraph regarding social networking.) Still, the "blurring" characterization is my own assertion without a source, so I'll repost without that sentence. Thanks again for the feedback. Frappyjohn (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "Web Journal" redirects here, but there is no mention of that term in the article. How does it relate to "blog", both technically and from a historical standpoint? In other words, why does it redirect here? 209.183.253.98 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Because "web journal" is apparently an obscure term used by people who find the term "blog" too vulgar or informal in tone, and want a more genteel-sounding euphemism. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a really small thing, but isn't blog conceived from the two words book and log? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.82.197 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No. As the article says it is "Web"+"log". -- Alexf^(talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The article claims as of 16 February 2011, there were over 156 million public blogs but the reference supporting this is a dud.

Has anyone got a more solid recent supportable figure on the number of blogs worldwide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebuchadnezzar o'neill (talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just read this article as I needed clarity unfortunately I didn't get a few questions immediately, or clearly answered. If what is the fundamental difference between a website and a blog? For me blogs are cheap, and untrustworthy,. I know wikipedia doesn't use them as r. S. All of these things should be in the article. Also technical info about blogging software should be clear. And references to critique of blogs. And more info on the bad of blogs. --41.116.122.30 (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to add this information; however, you'll need to provide reliable sources that verify these claims. And, of course, you couldn't use terms like "cheap" or "untrustworthy", per WP:NPOV, though you could conceivably quote some expert's opinion to that effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

[File:Nuvola apps edu languages.svg ] about this file are you kind to void "languages" in the title ?-thank you!188.25.52.31 (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Your meaning is not clear. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they wanted us to rename the file, without the word "languages" in the title. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding . Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). This article was already using a single LDR before I was reverted; now it has none (). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

we need proof of this "significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing" -- I do not see it. I note that Piotrus has spammed many articles with his notice--and before he was stopped earlier today he was using a bot of some sort to make major formatting changes to major articles On none of those articles had he been an active editor and he never saw any of the "significant bloat". The idea is a bad one because it makes it much harder for the user to follow the notes. Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate list defined references. When I edit, I generally try to edit a single section. List defined references compel me to then go edit a separate section. Worse, if I remove "referenced" info that someone else added for whatever reason, I then have to go hunt through the references to find the fix. Finally, list-defined refs are extremely difficult for new users to learn. Piotr's final point "the editing experience should become much friendlier" is, in fact, the exact opposite of what LDR does. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what LDR are. The readers will click on the note and there will be a citation in the same place - at the end of the article; it's not like readers actually go to edit note for the reference. Nor should editors be confused, after all the ref name="abc"/ is common enough (I count many dozens in this article), adding some more and moving all full references to one place, where they are alphabetically organized, should make it more easy for editors to find the full ref. Currently they have to search for it or look for it, after LDR scheme is implemented, they can expect to find it in an alphabetical list in the bottom of the article. Also, I found your accusation of spamming to be uncalled for; familiarize yourself with WP:CIV and WP:NPA before trowing such unfriendly terms at others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

But LDR is only good when a large number of the refs in an article are repeated. Again, my example applies in the majority of cases, where a reference is used one time. LDR essentially makes it impossible to edit a section--you always have to edit both the section and the reference section as well. You can also easily end up with refs in the reference section that are no longer in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, does the statement "After the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the Egyptian blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad was charged with insulting the military for an article he wrote on his personal blog and sentenced to 3 years." really need 14 references? - dcljr (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it certainly doesn't. And some of those didn't even appear to be RS. I've cut down to 1. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

teh fabis favorite blog is bthe kim kardashian blogThe article says "Personal bloggers usually take pride in their blog posts, even if their blog is never read.". This isn't backed up by any facts/citations. In fact, I could argue the contrary: unread blog posts could often give bloggers the feeling that the quality of their writing is low. - Bilalakhtar96 (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've cut it down to a single sentence. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the term portmanteau is used in general etymological discussions (outside of its narrower linguistic definition) to describe blended words, such as "spork" (spoon + fork). "Blog" is derived in a very different manner -- it is not a blended combination of "web" and "log" but rather a clipped word formed from the compound word "weblog."

It would be excellent of someone to edit the article's word origin in the first paragraph to reflect this more accurate derivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.67.200 (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The entry has been corrected as of 19 May 2013. The proper term is "contraction", and the opening line has been edited to reflect that. A proper portmanteau is more complex than a contraction. The portmanteau requires that the original two words are truly intermingled in both speech and semantic meaning. In "web log", a "log" is a distinct common noun while "web" is a nominal modifier which is itself a noun. Compare to "ship log" or "data log", in which both modifiers are nouns; instead of "captain's log" or "personal log", in which the modifiers are both adjectival (the first is possessive). Nevertheless, the semantic meanings of "web" and "log" are not blended in "blog" as web is a modifier of the noun "log", which retains its ancient and original semantic meaning. Therefore, "blog" cannot be a portmanteau. A true portmanteau of "web log" would most likely be "weg" or "leb". Zeppelin42 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have reviewed this wiki and note that there is important information relating to this topic that is not present in the information provided. The Following copy needs to be inserted immediately after "credited with being one of the older and longer running weblogs.[18][19]" under the "Origins" heading.

The copy that should be inserted is:

"The world's First Travel Blog was created by Eric Roberts in the month of May 1996. It was a Blog chronicling a journey made by himself, and his wife, around the remote Northern parts of Australia in a 4WD car. The blog was built as a standalone website, and became very popular with 1000's of people around the world following their adventure. The original Blog is still live and can be found at <redacted>. It was first set up on a .com address of the same name, but later moved to the .info address!" Ecka62 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that 1) verifies that this was the first travel blog, and 2) verifies that this is an important milestone (that is, we're not going to list the first travel blog, first food blog, first postmodernist theory blog, first...etc.). The site itself is not a reliable source for this claim, as we need something independent of the blog. I've gone ahead and removed the link in your site above, as we almost certainly wouldn't include it even if we included this claim, and having it here is just a kind of advertising. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

On the 4th paragraph under the section "Origins" it says the following: "Blogs can be hosted by dedicated blog hosting services, or they can be run using blog software, or on regular web hosting services" I am not totally sure (that's why I haven't edited it) but it appears that there is a little mistake and this should be written as follows: "Blogs can be hosted by dedicated blog hosting services, or they can be run using blog software on regular web hosting services" Notice that I have deleted the "or" between "...blog software" and "on regular... This changes the meaning and I suspect the wording I suggest represents the originally intended meaning of this sentence. On a second thought even this might not be OK. I would think that it should reflect blog software being run on the blogger's machine and then the content uploaded to the "regular web hosting service". Any suggestions on how to improve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Pascual (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Alex Pascual (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Although this page highlights a number of uses for blogs, the prevailing notion is still one of news items on a particular subject or a personal diary. I would like to see this page also mention the forms of serialized online publication that blogs can be associated with since they are probably the contributions that will have the greatest longevity. This includes 'Blog Fiction' (for which a page already exists somewhere) as well as serialized research and technical presentations. These benefit from a chapter-by-chapter presentation to a Web-based audience along with the potential for feedback and discussion. Reports of the demise of the 'blog', such as the recent one at The Blog is Dead have a very narrow focus by comparison.TonyP (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Citation 25 cites an article on Fortune Magazine's website which no longer exists. The link is dead. The same article can be found at http://meteorsite.com/no-escaping-the-blog.

I am requesting that you update citation 25 to fix the dead link by replacing it with the live link to the same article. Thank you AlokinAlset (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I pulled an old version out of the Wayback Machine. Linking to the one you provided makes me nervous on grounds of copyright and plagiarism. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 03:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

http://we.tl/e4BipdNYwl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.226.178 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

A blog (a truncation of the expression web log)[1] is a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed in reverse chronological order (the most recent post appears first). Until 2009 blogs were usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often covered a single subject. More recently "multi-author blogs" (MABs) have developed, with posts written by large numbers of authors and professionally edited. MABs from newspapers, other media outlets, universities, think tanks, advocacy groups and similar institutions account for an increasing quantity of blog traffic. The rise of Twitter and other "microblogging" systems helps integrate MABs and single-author blogs into societal newstreams. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.

The emergence and growth of blogs in the late 1990s coincided with the advent of web publishing tools that facilitated the posting of content by non-technical users. (Previously, a knowledge of such technologies as HTML and FTP had been required to publish content on the Web.)

A majority are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via GUI widgets on the blogs, and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites.[2] In that sense, blogging can be seen as a form of social networking service. Indeed, bloggers do not only produce content to post on their blogs, but also build social relations with their readers and other bloggers.[3] There are high-readership blogs which do not allow comments, such as Daring Fireball.

Many blogs provide commentary on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries; others function more as online brand advertising of a particular individual or company. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, Web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability of readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important contribution to the popularity of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (art blogs), photographs (photoblogs), videos (video blogs or "vlogs"), music (MP3 blogs), and audio (podcasts). Microblogging is another type of blogging, featuring very short posts. In education, blogs can be used as instructional resources. These blogs are referred to as edublogs.

On 16 February 2011, there were over 156 million public blogs in existence.[4] On 20 February 2014, there were around 172 million Tumblr[5] and 75.8 million WordPress[6] blogs in existence worldwide. According to critics and other bloggers, Blogger is the most popular blogging service used today, however Blogger does not offer public statistics.[7][8] Technorati has 1.3 million blogs as of February 22, 2014[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.182.21 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The statement, “Until 2009 blogs were usually the work of a single individual” seems opinion, rather than fact. As early as 2005, both the Huffington Post and Freakonomics were hosting multi-author blogs. In early 2008, Hubspot also had a multi-author blog. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Due to the vast amount of spam showing up on this Talk page, I have removed large chunks of content. It would be helpful if some people would add this page to their watch list and help police this discussion thread, as it has apparently become the playground of spammers. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

On the first visible chunk of content, there's a link to "Best Collection of Baby Blog WordPress Theme " which is blatantly SPAM.

Is there really that much disgust with thinking of blogs as web applications that after all this time, nobody can bring themselves to fill in these links? Egads. In 2014, make the connection, peeps! :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What is a Dark Blog? That page just redirects to the Blog article, which contains no explanation of the term. Tiggum (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Requesting to replace Citation 10 dead link "After 10 Years of Blogs, the Future's Brighter Than Ever". Wired. 2007-12-17. Retrieved 2008-06-05.[dead link] with a more up to date reference here: http://renowebdesigngroup.com/the-future-of-blogs-is-so-bright-you-have-to-wear-shades Tahoemnts (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Tahoemnts

I've fixed the link so it's no longer dead. Stickee (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There are links to the self-proclaimed "second-oldest man alive" and an Israeli blogging platform which claims to have been the first in the country. Hardly relevant, but due to the semi-protected status of the page, this spam can't be removed by the average user. 86.209.17.252 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I tripped up on Collaborative blog today and found a pretty spammy-looking, poorly worded piece on collaborative blogging. After doing some heavy trimming, it looks like the relevant pieces could be merged here. Thoughts? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to add Political blog to the merger. It appears it may have been split off some time ago, but seeing as the article is really just a bunch of examples, it appears what we have here is mostly sufficient with a few additions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

With no protests, I have merged/redirected both of these here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

People are beginning to use the term "blog" as being synonymous with "article". I think this is especially true of people in India. I think this article helps to separate the meanings of the two words and I hope it does so as much as is needed. This article however reflects the tendency of the term becoming so general that it is becoming synonymous with the word article and therefore meaningless as a useful term. Sam Tomato (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Before blogging became popular, digital communities took many forms, including Usenet, commercial online services such as GEnie, BiX and the early CompuServe, e-mail lists[14] and Bulletin Board Systems (BBS). In the 1990s, Internet forum software, created running conversations with "threads". Threads are topical connections between messages on a virtual "corkboard".

One such company, Telerate, a US company providing financial data to market participants, specialising in commercial paper and bond prices, employed Paul Casella, editor of Millwall Football Club's fanzine; The Lion Roars, to update its Bulletin Board System throughout the Italia 1990 Football World Cup. He opened a daily discussion and added articles about matches and news items throughout the competition. This created discussion threads and humour based exchanges.

The thread based article/discussion pages ran for a total of six weeks from 28th May 1990 to 9th July 1990. It was effectively the first blog.

Lawdmuck (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The term blog might have been first used in the 1990s but I sure did not ever hear the term until about ten years ago (probably less). When I first heard the term I asked people what it is and they did not know. This article is misleading in terms of when the term became in general use. Sam Tomato (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Blog has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could

There are high-readership blogs which do not allow comments, such as Daring Fireball.

be changed to

However, there are high-readership blogs which do not allow comments, such as Daring Fireball.

since the sentence does not support its paragraph's topic sentence, and the lack of a contrast marker makes it read oddly? 50.96.216.210 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Done Altamel (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The fabian favorite blog is gabriel blog because is very fun subject should discuss the variations in spelling of the plural for blog, i.e., blogs -vs- blogz. Examples of "blogz" are utilized on websites such as http://Bizzyblogz.com, http://HipHopblogz.com and http://Blogz.org ^[1] January 16, 2010, http://www.alexa.com/search?q=blogz&p=rkey&r=site_site.

Mark Parsec (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Mark Parsec

My personal guess: blogi ( russian pluralization ) , because my personal guess is, against popular belief, it´s probably not a alog, it´s a blog, and the pluralization is, well, as mentioned, along the o. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.153.37 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Blog has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Your current redirect message reads thus:

"Blogger" redirects here. For the Google service with same name, see Blogger (service). For other users, see Blog (disambiguation).

However, I do believe you meant to say other uses rather than other users.

MaurolepisDreki (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Good catch! -- Orduin ^Discuss 01:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Blog has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Create your own blog BloggerXpert.com

BloggerXpert (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Website does not have its own wikipedia page. Cannolis (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018203539/http://www.delawareonline.com:80/article/20091103/OPINION16/91102031/1004/OPINION/Journalists-deserve-subsidies-too to http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091103/OPINION16/91102031/1004/OPINION/Journalists-deserve-subsidies-too

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I just spent an hour trying to track down Medium (publishing platform) and in the process noticed that there isn't a list of blog hosting services in Wikipedia. The closest I found was the Comparison of free web hosting services article and it's either way out of date or has criteria that is excluding Medium from its listing. Can we either create a list or link to the Comparision of free web hosting services? I'm a newb, be gentle, I'm doing my best, and I can't get into this semi-locked page to do the edits I'm proposing (which, I agree, is probably a good thing). Grandsuur (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

new or not, you're right. but it looks like someone "fixed" the problem by having the link for blog hosting point to "types of blogs" and then not including information that probably used to be here somewhere. some of the people who live here are idiots, and can't understand that their pet definition is wrong. crap like this makes the wiki more useless every time it's allowed to happen. eventually, this type of over-streamlining behavior leads to there being one entry that everything points to. imagine! 10 billions entries, all pointing to "something or another"! yay! wiki done! again, idiots. information goes in here, not links to what half-wits think something is sort of like.108.2.231.214 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've researched this a little further here in the wiki. in other places, blog engines are included in with content management systems, but this article, which is protected enough that I cannot edit it, does not mention this. so, here is a legitimate hole to be fixed, not like what I was ranting about before (yes, that was me). HAND108.2.231.214 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)-maxnort

This edit request to Blog has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change hyperlink for "Peter Merholz" (currently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Merholz&action=edit&redlink=1) to http://euforiaonline.net/peter-merholz/ because current link is broken and does not exist and new link contains relevant, unbiased information on the link title. Marcbzzzzz (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: External links are not permitted in the body of articles. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Blog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411075325/http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/5/blog-jensen.asp?printerfriendly=yes to http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/5/blog-jensen.asp?printerfriendly=yes
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0%2C15114%2C1011763-1%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230456533492&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140324134110/http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091103/OPINION16/91102031/1004/OPINION/Journalists-deserve-subsidies-too to http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091103/OPINION16/91102031/1004/OPINION/Journalists-deserve-subsidies-too
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926103832/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061009_579137.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061009_579137.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0%2C%2C1766663%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725003614/http://blog.plaxoed.com/2005/02/11/the-official-story-straight-from-the-source to http://blog.plaxoed.com/2005/02/11/the-official-story-straight-from-the-source/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have recently started my blog Tricky Career

And I'm finding it hard to increase it's DA and PA. Can anyone please tell me some pro tips.

My short term goal is to have a DA and PA of at least 30 within next 6 months. How do I achieve it?

Help ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudeepgiri (talk • contribs) 06:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Blog has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

112.110.108.175 (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC) i want to give some information related with our city, streets. how can i do it , how i can show information to all people.

Not done: This is not the right place to do that. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Blog has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

^[2] Nurhasan16 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: No actual change specified. ToThAc (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)