Imagine how successful Dickens might have been if only his readers had had access to star ratings!

Hmm, the link she provided doesn't actually go to your Melcrum blog.

I honestly don't have a problem with this one. What do I think you should do with it? Write a quick post on your blog saying "Hey guys, I've got a new blog over on (site). The topics will be (a little narrower, focused on a particular topic, broader - though how could that be! etc). Feel free to take a look if you're interested." Interested readers will figure out how to comment or rate your blog if they choose to.

On a somewhat related note, I wonder if people aren't starting to spread themselves too thing with all these blogs, message boards, etc. I know that I have a limited amount of work time for such things and have to carefully pick and choose which blogs and message boards I choose to read/comment on. (And while I do enjoy surfing the internet in my non-work time, I prefer to explore non-work topics then.) I love MyRagan.com but find that I have little time to explore it.

Personally, I would rather see one well-written, frequently updated David Murray blog (why, like the one right here!) than have to visit a bunch of different sites to see what you have to say. That said, I will read your Melcrum blog, so this isn't a criticism, exactly.

Anybody else starting to feel spread a bit too thin with all of this social media? If you're keeping up with MyRagan.com, Melcrum's CommNetwork, and all the great blogs and message boards, how are you fitting in your actual WORK?

Andrea, I appreciate your perspective, and I too wonder if there'll be a big consolidation at some point. Though I DO think it's psychologically and intellectually healthy for people to regularly spend time online with other communicators.

But to clarify on this issue, they're not talking about my Melcrum blog; I don't blog on Melcrum's site. But on that site, they list this blog, Shades of Gray, and they want me to tell you to go rate it and write reviews about it so IT rises to the top (and so you'll get involved in the Melcrum site along the way).

I don't see this scheme as a big ethical transgression. And if I were struggling for traffic to my blog—my blog gets traffic not just based on my general wonderfulness, but mostly because I've got this Ragan platform—I would probably appreciate the chance Melcrum is offering to do a mutual backscratch, the ultimate effect of which WILL probably be to raise the status of little-known but interesting blogs.

But it's a crazy, mixed-up world we're blogging in.

Oops, I misunderstood the original message. I still think it's OK though. I don't think you should expect too many ratings - I logged in (must have registered at some point!) and found the listing for your blog but couldn't figure out how to rate it.

I totally agree that it's healthy and good for us to spend time online with other communicators, and I truly enjoy doing so. I also have other work-related sites that I visit - related to retail, books/movies/music, writing in general, etc. All are worthwhile and definitely contribute to my business knowledge and job skills. But how much time per day can I expect my employer to pay me to do that?

Shel Holtz said the other day (in his HC+T e-mail newsletter) that he doesn't think there's an information overload, but I think there is. Yes, people learn to deal with it by picking and choosing what to read, but to me having too much stuff that I WANT to read or participate in but don't have time for is just as bad as having too much crap that I don't want.

David - first, how do you get off calling yourself a "Puritan" when you did an article (one of my personal favourites incidentally) about how when you and Mark Ragan accidentally switched jackets at a conference after so many drinks you could barely read his notes you found in his pocket (I think it went something like "That Murray's a drunk...get rid of him?")

Second, I can't agree more - a blog will build it's following naturally with word of mouth or not at all. Personally, I couldn't care less about the "ratings" of a bunch of people I don't know on a website I may or may not spend a lot of time surfing.

Finally, I agree with Shel - there cannot be too much stuff out there. I have become lighting fast at determining whether some new "thing"... site, blog whatever, is of interest to me. If it is I save it, if not well, buh-bye. Maybe it's because I was one of those kids who asked "why?" a million times, but I ALWAYS want to see what's available before I decide what I like, so the more the merrier!

Hi David,

Just to clarify, the purpose of the reviews section on the CommsNetwork is not to promote Melcrum or its interests, but to direct communicators to useful resources, whether they are blogs, podcasts, websites, service providers, whatever.

Visitors don't have to log in to read the reviews and see the star ratings, and that's why this is proving such a popular listing for people to discover new resources.

It's a simple and transparent equation. The more reviews and ratings you get from people who enjoy your blog, the more new people will make a point of checking you out. But hey, if you've got enough readers already...

And hey what's with this publishing e-mail correspondence on blogs anyway...?

See, Kristen, that's my problem - there's so much good stuff out there, and so much of it interests me - I want to read it all! I could spend all day on the internet. But of course, there are only so many hours in the day that a lot of it goes unread.

Kristen--

That wasn't an article. That was an entry in my diary. How did you get your hands on it?

I think Melcrum's product-rating system is designed to separate the wheat from the chaff for people like Andrea who are overwhlemed by the hairy world of corporate communication blogs, Web sites and other products.

The question is, will Andrea believe in Melcrum's rating system sufficiently to take its word for it? Or will she contine to surf the big blue sea? The jury's still out, but if I had to choose, I'd bet on the sea at this point.

I was sure that was an article, but frankly I'm too lazy to hunt through the piles of Ragan publications lying around my cube and my living room to confirm, so I'll just go with...lucky guess??

On the big blue sea, I agree. Even choosing which "ratings system" to use to separate the wheat and chaff means making a decision about which system will best fit your interests, but its based on limited information, at least in the beginning.

I may look at such ratings systems, but to rely on them INSTEAD of surfing around looking at a bunch of other alternatives would just give me the niggling feeling I might be missing out on some great thing the "system" hadn't discovered.

Personally, I would much rather surf the big blue sea and rely (for the most part) on trusted favorites to direct me to related content that I would enjoy and find useful. I really like the tone and content of Shades of Gray and Corporate Hallucinations (Crescenzo's blog), for instance, so I would trust the "blogroll" recommendations of both sites more than Melcrum's list of ratings provided by strangers.

Note to self: Update blogroll for Andrea.

Andrea:

Whose blog do you like better . . . mine or David's?

If you'd rather answer privately, you can send me an e-mail. But be warned. If you send David an e-mail, he'll probably publish it.

Steve C.

Steve, I'll have to plead the fifth on this one! I enjoy both blogs and check them faithfully - both are entertaining and insightful and, sometimes, even work-related.

I will say, though, that I can generally read David's blog without keeping my cursor hovered over my browser's "back" button in case I come across something inappropriate for work!