Talk:Multi-blog

This entry reads as if it were an advertisement for multi-blogging software.


 * Comment: There is a great deal of truth in the above assertion. However, the article provides the basis for developing a more comprehensive article on this topic. I find that my best thinking frequently proceeds from a prejudicial point of view to a more balanced, less biased opinion. Hopefully, this article will evolve.


 * In order to create NPOV, I have had to remove a lot of the content in the entry and write new content. I believe that the article now better conforms to the NPOV policy. I also advocate integrating this article into weblog.

Response to recent changes: To assume that a phenomena such as multi-blogging is merely an attempt to Google bomb or set up spam blogs for contextual ad programs is about as biased a few that anyone could have. Wikipedia is not a 'warning label' reference. To leave standing this version misleads Wiki readers. If such edits are permissible for multi-blogging, then simililar comments would need to be added to ALL Wiki entries regarding all other web softwares that 'might' be used in unauthorized or illegitimate manners.


 * The most recent edits have taken authoritative information about legitimate multi-blogging and turned it into a farse. There are so many false statements and incorrect conclusions in the current version, I recommend it be returned to the pervious more accurate edits.  To claim that 'explainations' are 'advertisements' is unsupported.  Rather, explainations and examples are needed in order to add clarity to an otherwise complicated, new, or misunderstood technology


 * I recommend that if edits are needed, they be edits to improve and augment existing information, not re-writes that exclude vital explainations and understanding. Not warning statements of gloom and doom just because someone wants to maintain more than one blog.  A return to a previous version is justified.

An additional comment. If there is consensus that the entry appears 'ad-like' (which I do not concur), I would recommend removing external links and resources. This might resolve the issue, though at the expense of Wikipedia readers whom might find benefit and education in the external support ducumentation and resources. I propose for consideration.

The edit does NOT assume that multiblogging is merely a "an attempt to Google bomb or set up spam blogs for contextual ad programs." THe entry lists proponents' opinions and detractors' opinions. As a proponent, perhaps you could add more to that section, instead of reverting the entire entry.

Please explain "false statements and incorrect conclusions." You make it sound as if the whole entry is critical. It is not. The critical paragraph is one out of four; if you think the paragraphs are missing information, please add details and clarifications.

"Understanding the need for multi-blogging" sounds like a brochure. For one, it's written in the second person, which is not proper for an encyclopedia entry. Moreover sentences such as "' By this time, all the banana lovers, and pear lovers and mango lovers are looking elsewhere for what they want. Your fruit blog with it's 'rotate a fruit approach' is not able to appeal to the different niche audiences in the total population of fruit lovers. You're not targeting or personalizing your content." are not "authoritative information" but biased assumptions about the nature of blogging. Once again, this isn't an advertisement.

merge
I agree this article should merged with weblog. Weblog is watched by a larger community and that entry will conform more to the NPOV.

I have been seeing DHollings edits and it's shameless advertisement of his software. If those links are to be included, then so does these

Not the first Dan Holings Responds speaking of scoundrels

In the controversy section. So the readers can learn more.

OK, at least the source of our numerous edits is revealed. An attempt to slander the legitimate consulting, services, and expertise of me, Dan Hollings, was published at the webraw.com site some time ago. There is an attempt to take unsupported personal and business accusations and overshadow information and technology. So be it. This has no place at Wikipedia. I have 10+ years in legitamite web technology experience and a substantial track record in anti-spam, anti-hype, anti-stupid-web-tricks. I know a lot about weblogs and the topic in discussion. More eyes need to evaluate the multi-blog Wikipedia entry, but eyes that have not been skewed by blatant spam-like postings on seemingly zealot-like site that aims at destroying others legitamite businesses and reputation.

My earlier recommendation stands, the multi-blog entry went from informative and detailed, to vague, skewed, and warning-like in nature. If there is consensus, we need to fucus on what multi-blog is rather than what a handful of webraw devotees think of me, I'm NOT the issue.

Please note that of the links listed above, all responsible sites have retracted their incorrect statements except for webraw. And the link to my response does clarify some of the misstatements and false claims asserted by webraw. But again, Wikipedia in no place for these type discussions. It is a disservice to Wikipedia and their readership.

First of all, Mr. Hollings, the sources of the edits are several. I am not affiliated with the publisher of webraw nor with the user who wrote the "merge" section above. You, however, who stand to profit from the multi-blogging software and who originally wrote the entry as an advertisement (including links to your personal '100 blogs' site), and not merely as a source of information, have a major conflict of interest here. Finally, I challenge you to demonstrate how the current entry, as it stands, is skewed. The critical paragraph is a minor part of the entry; and that paragraph is a legitimate concern on behalf of certain users. A paragraph about supporters of multi-blogging software is also included; feel free to add information to it if you wish. Presenting both viewpoints is the essence of NPOV.

I second the move to merge this entry with weblog.

To further support my claim that this entry as written by Dhollings was an advertisement: Dan Hollings was placing similarly worded ads for his software in the comments of several blogs. [|1],[|2]

Welcome To Wiki
Mr. Hollings, Welcome To Wiki. Wiki, Welcome Mr. Hollings.