Comments on: Establishing General Submission Guidelines

By: Roy

Roy — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:41:36 +0000

Thanks, Rob. That’s helpful and make sense (except the IP rights bit). And thanks for fixing the sidebar for us. Keep up the great work.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:56:08 +0000

Roy:
Check out the “Get the Code For Your Blog” page. It is the result of this discussion. The bottom line is that we just want some criteria by which to judge blogs. This is not the code itself, but a way in which we can exclude blogs that don’t meet what we are going after. If we have commercial sites or sites that are just “link farms”, then the code will be meaningless. I would rather police on the front end than later.

Regarding the HON code (which I mysteriously did qualify for - I guess they like llamas), I feel that the HON code is too exclusive and more oriented toward scientific websites. Medical bloggers need a way to define the rules by which they are blogging (both for the sake of the blogger and for the reader). The goal of this code was just to put in writing for bloggers the rules. It saves us all having to reinvent the wheel for our own blogs. Most of these things are things we are doing or feel should be done anyhow.

Makes sense?

By: Roy

Roy — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:34:54 +0000

I’m a little late to this party, but thought I’d chime in, nontheless.
I agree with 3 months being a minimum, but favor the “AND” over the “OR” regarding # of posts. Otherwise, I could easily start a blog, churn out 15 posts in the next 2 days, and then be eligible. And if it is done this way, then maybe use 10 as a minimum. If someone posts once weekly, in 3 months they’ll only have 12.

Must be a “real blog”. How is that defined?

“Active blog”: I suggest operationalizing that definition, such as “Must have at least one post in each of the last 3 months” or “Must have at least one post in the last 35 days.”

“Must respect copyright and intellectual property rights.” I am in favor of either getting rid of this or qualifying it in some way. There is too much room for interpretation. For example, Rob listed some examples of requirements, without attributing them to specific authors. Is that respecting rights? I include song snippets sometimes at the end of our podcasts, with attribution to the artist and links to iTunes or eMusic to buy the song. We did not get permission. Is that Fair Use? Does it respect rights? I personally feel uncomfortable with the current guideline as written.

Oh, one last thing, is there discussion elsewhere about how this code complements/augments/replaces similar codes, such as HON? I admire you for taking this on, as it is needed, but I have not spent much time thinking about how such a code protects bloggers. I do recall looking at HON some time ago and thinking that our blog wouldn’t make the cut, though I forget why (might be because of need for full name and next review date, or something similar).

Thanks!

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:27:00 +0000

OK:
I agree that there must be clear guidelines set. The must, however, only be guidelines. There will be some exceptions to any rule eventually. We can say that an English language blog is essential, but what if a blog does part in English and part in French (I have one such person interested already). With translation tools on browsers, you can at least check to see if the integrity of a blog is consistent with the guidelines.

I would certainly say that in general, the blog should have at least 3 months (I wouldn't say 6) and/or 15 posts.

The biggest problem for me is the possibility of the code being usurped by people who want to use it for their marketing advantage. I want this code to be for and by bloggers.

I also like the idea of featuring a site on a regular basis. When new bloggers come on board, we can run a post that talks about their blog and what it is about. This would increase the visibility of the blog and would also increase the visibility of the code, as people go to it to learn about new medical blogs.

I am very frustrated presently by the limitations of Blogger, however. I left it for Wordpress on my own blog, and I am starting to wonder if I shouldn't do it with this one as well. Dean had some very good ideas about ways to enable people applying for right to display the code, but I see no way of doing that in Blogger.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:06:00 +0000

I'd say that the age of the blog could be a guideline/ number of posts could be an and/ either/ or proposition.

Sigh... what I meant to say was...

"I'd say that the age of the blog / number of posts could be an and/ either/ or proposition."

This is why I always told my students to have someone else proofread their work. Self-editing can lead one to overlook glaring errors.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:04:00 +0000

I’d say that the age of the blog could be a guideline/ number of posts could be an and/ either/ or proposition. Some excellent blogs won’t be up to 15 posts in three months, but there may be a consistent posting pattern just the same. Some excellent blogs may be more youthful, but have an incredibly dynamic posting rhythm and already have a substantial amount of traffic.

Then again, I’m the literature major among us, where everything is mutable; I may be oversimplifying the matter.

By: DrGwenn

DrGwenn — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 01:45:00 +0000

I’m a big advocate of “set in stone” guidelines because of accountability issues and the guidelines you proposed seem fair and reasonable as a starting point. Similar to the HON reasoning, we’re trying to weed out the rif-raf, nothing more, and give us something to fall back upon should someone say “hey, why didn’t I get ‘approved’”.

We have a cool logo and a set of principles that we can now proudly stand behind so having writing guidelines we can point to makes good sense.

By: Dean Moyer

Dean Moyer — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:44:00 +0000

Hi greg,

I visited a couple of dozen directories. All were different. I didn’t run across anyone using duplicate guidelines.

By: greg

greg — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:29:00 +0000

Hi Dean:

Just curious where you found those example submission guidelines. It would appear that somebody is using the BOTW Directory guidelines…

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:40:00 +0000

Yes, the problem that I saw was twofold:
First was that I was getting commercial blogs that posted with the intent on just selling a product. The blog was really a ruse to get people to get interested in a product. Even with full disclosure, it seemed to me to be something that crossed the line with respect to the code.

The second was, as Dean spelled out, the inclusion of blogs that used secondary content (or 'script generated' content). How can they say they adhere to a code of ethics when they are not producing most of the content? It seems impossible.

I just wonder if these need to be set forth in stone, or if they can be guidelines we use when we peak at a site and decide if it is OK for it to display the code. I think we should have them written down so that when I or someone else respond to a request negatively, I can site the criteria. It is important to have some structure.

That is why I wanted Dean to post this.