jdc
Well-Known Member
I think the social media vs blog vs website is a false trichotomy (is there such a word?)
It all depends on who your 'audience' is, and the communications method.
A web page is for you to maintain and administer, and is much the best thing for 'vanity publishing' - which is far from pejorative: there's a bunch of useful information out there, some published by those of this parish, eg Vyv Cox (and to a much lesser extent I succumb also). You maintain it as and when you have something to say, and when you have a good internet connection. There's (almost - I could use raw ftp) no way I'd attempt to maintain a site via an Iridium link from mid-ocean. You need WiFi from a land-line or a reasonable mobile broadband connection. There's no expectation of a predictable schedule: updates are made irregularly.
Facebook is designed for ephemera such as sharing cute cat videos. More seriously you don't get to control the amount of material you have to download before you start to upload, so you absolutely have to have a very good connection - on an iridium modem just forget it: - 2 x the age of the universe just to log in (it's only 2.4 kilo-baud at best!) Another probably fatal problem is that there is no search facility which makes it unusable as an archive. Therefore it's just for family and friends who you already know are interested. You can't subsequently say to someone "if you want more info read our Facebook pages on Kiribati". It also steals your copyright to photographs, but that may not matter to you.
A blog is a write-only method. You've no idea if it's read at all so it can feel like it's pointless: it's certainly without immediate feedback and so can become a chore. A great advantage is that you can upload a new diary entry or blog by simply sending a text only email, even if only a few dozen characters. This can be done from a low-end non-smart phone or via an iridium link. You have absolutely zero excess bandwidth requirement and are 100% in control, so I wouldn't contemplate any other method from mid ocean or other remote place. I have found that blogs seem to work best for an older audience who log on specifically to read the blog - ie for those not permanently 'on-line'. But that itself imposes a sort of moral responsibility to update it with a regular cadence. Another downside is that it's often not editable or at least difficult to edit once posted.
Of all these - we've between us done all three - the blog remains the one which continually surprises me: sometimes a year or three later I discover that the most unexpected people follow it: old colleagues I've not seen for a decade, or son's girl-friend's granny etc. So despite it seeming to be 'write only' I suspect that it has the most reads over time. Who hosts it is probably not so important, but for what it's worth I use mailasail which seems well used, see http:\\blog.mailasail.com
It all depends on who your 'audience' is, and the communications method.
A web page is for you to maintain and administer, and is much the best thing for 'vanity publishing' - which is far from pejorative: there's a bunch of useful information out there, some published by those of this parish, eg Vyv Cox (and to a much lesser extent I succumb also). You maintain it as and when you have something to say, and when you have a good internet connection. There's (almost - I could use raw ftp) no way I'd attempt to maintain a site via an Iridium link from mid-ocean. You need WiFi from a land-line or a reasonable mobile broadband connection. There's no expectation of a predictable schedule: updates are made irregularly.
Facebook is designed for ephemera such as sharing cute cat videos. More seriously you don't get to control the amount of material you have to download before you start to upload, so you absolutely have to have a very good connection - on an iridium modem just forget it: - 2 x the age of the universe just to log in (it's only 2.4 kilo-baud at best!) Another probably fatal problem is that there is no search facility which makes it unusable as an archive. Therefore it's just for family and friends who you already know are interested. You can't subsequently say to someone "if you want more info read our Facebook pages on Kiribati". It also steals your copyright to photographs, but that may not matter to you.
A blog is a write-only method. You've no idea if it's read at all so it can feel like it's pointless: it's certainly without immediate feedback and so can become a chore. A great advantage is that you can upload a new diary entry or blog by simply sending a text only email, even if only a few dozen characters. This can be done from a low-end non-smart phone or via an iridium link. You have absolutely zero excess bandwidth requirement and are 100% in control, so I wouldn't contemplate any other method from mid ocean or other remote place. I have found that blogs seem to work best for an older audience who log on specifically to read the blog - ie for those not permanently 'on-line'. But that itself imposes a sort of moral responsibility to update it with a regular cadence. Another downside is that it's often not editable or at least difficult to edit once posted.
Of all these - we've between us done all three - the blog remains the one which continually surprises me: sometimes a year or three later I discover that the most unexpected people follow it: old colleagues I've not seen for a decade, or son's girl-friend's granny etc. So despite it seeming to be 'write only' I suspect that it has the most reads over time. Who hosts it is probably not so important, but for what it's worth I use mailasail which seems well used, see http:\\blog.mailasail.com
Last edited:
