26 June 2005

The Death of BlogSpotting?

Here's a really long BlogSpotting post. Could be the last one ever. See below and top right.

Note to all with hyperactive RSS readers: No substantive changes here. I'm just reposting this to fix a broken link. I know I have edited this post a dozen times or more, but if this is going to be the last ever BlogSpotting post, I'm determined to make it the best, most complete one ever.

BlogSpotting




35 comments:

mxu said...

keep blogspotting! your comments and links to other people's blogs have opened up a world of bloggers who have great thoughts that I never knew existed.

Tim Challies said...

BlogSpotting isn't so bad. In my estimation it must take just about as long as writing a normal post, yet 4 out of 5 dentists agree that it's at least 50% less edifying. Possibly more.

Plus, you'll continue to get schmucks like myself mentioning your name every now and then just to get a link. So if it continues, I'd suggest refining it somehow - perhaps just pointing to posts you enjoyed instead of posts that mention Pyromaniac.

Dan Paden said...

I've found it richly entertaining and humbling.

Sean MacNair said...

How else am I going to get people to visit my blog? The gratuitous Phil Johnson reference is on its way....

MTG said...

We love you. Who cares about the other goofballs?

Jeremy Weaver said...

If you keep blogspotting I'll start mentioning you more. Think of all the extra hits you'll get from my mom!

Jeremy Weaver said...

That didn't sound right, but you know what I mean.

Kevin Jones said...

Judging from your blogspotting poll (at 7 am June 26), it looks like most people want you to dump blogspotting. I thought it was fun, and it introduced me to a lot of people that I might not have run into otherwise.

I vote for your continued blogspotting. But I really hope that you do whatever you want, and not pay that much attention to blogger critics.

Loki Odinsson said...

I don't like really big fonts, I just fiddle with my tempate so much that screwing it up is inevitable. Besides, this is my first attempt at blogging, so give me a break! I'm learning html as I go!

Brian said...

Word of warning from someone who works in the technology field.

Do not use a blogspot poll to make a decision on something. That poll is easily exploitable. All you have proven with that poll is that you have ~5-49 people that want you to keep them and ~1-118 people who don't. My numbers are based on the stats as of this comment: Keep 'em. - 50 / Dump 'em. - 118. My methodology: I figure at least 5 people voted for keeping them since I have seen at least that many actual comments suggesting such. I know it isn't 50 because I voted twice to prove on a technical level that the stats were bogus. The votes for dumping them could technically be one person juicing the poll, though it is likely more than just one.

Point being I could very easily sway it back in favor of keeping them if I wanted to. I think you underestimate the lengths people that do not care for you too much will go to.

I suggest that you get your numbers from actual KEEP or DUMP comments (even that isn't fool proof but it is better than the poll you have up).

I say keep them. I like the writing style you use in them (always good for a laugh) and there are always some good links in them. I, like the first commenter on this post (mxu), have run across some blogs/reading that I would have never seen if it wasn't for your blogspotting posts. Good stuff IMO.

AMDG

Phil Johnson said...

Yeah, it looks to me like someone is manipulating the figures, too. The first 16 votes were 14 to keep and 2 to dump the posts. Between then and 8:00am today, there were 50% more no votes than total hits on the blog itself. Hard to explain a phenomenon like that.

There's supposed to be a mechanism that rejects multiple votes from the same IP address, but it's apparently pretty easy to work around.

Oh, well. A "no" vote is starting to look good to me anyway. The blogspotting posts require a lot more time and work than conventional posts. If I knew how to do it, I'd be tempted to manipulate the outcome to be "no."

Jeff A. Spry said...

No insult intended, Mr. Johnson. It was merely a pathetically misguided attempt at humor. Anyone who grew up in the south knew the old wives' tale that "if you played with matches, you'd . . ."

Phil Johnson said...

Jeff,

I knew that, and of course I didn't take offense.

I AM offended, however, that you would refer to me as "Mr." You trying to make me feel OLD? Cut that out.

It's "Phil."



Or, if you prefer, "Trogdor."

rebecca said...

I vote keep them--they're fun--but don't do them so often.

Why not just determine a maximum number of posts you'll spot, and then take whichever links show up first until you reach your maximum number? That way, no one would actually KNOW that their post would get a link just because they mentioned you.

Douglas said...

"Trogdor."

Those cartoons are funny!

skh said...

I cannot imagine life without BlogSpotting. In fact, I'm thinking about starting a "Save the BlogSpot" campaign. The reasons you listed for keeping the spot, the discovery of your new time-saving friend Technocrati, and the actual comment-counsel you've received (as opposed to votes) all point toward a glorious BlogSpotting future, and that is a future worth blogging in.

pgepps said...

Hey, Trogdor--

I voted keep 'em. Despite your defeating my best efforts (had they been all *that* mission-critical, I wouldn't have put a link in Doug's comments, I suppose) to avoid a direct encounter, I think linkage is what blogs do best.

I would agree with Tim that keeping the concept but doing a round-up of stuff you think is worth mentioning, rather than a frequent (and thus likely to grow geometrically) round-up of every post that mentions you, would be an improvement.

I'd also like once more to greet you (now from Japan) as someone who did profit from your teaching, albeit not your bellicose Calvinism, and who does love the brothers at TMC and G-Com.

May the Lord bless your preaching the Gospel, and may He lead us all into better understanding.

Take care,
PGE

Ryan DeBarr said...

Ryan DeBarr doesn't really deserve to be here. He hasn't blogged any remarks about PyroManiac that give me any fodder for a reply. But he does have me linked in his blogroll, and he's an old friend, so I'm giving his blog a freebie.

Ok, Ok, I have fixed the problem.

Josh S. said...

Phil (a.k.a. Trogdor apparently!),

I recognize all of your points. I just wanted you to admit that it was vainglorious... :)

Actually, I think that the problem lies more with your readers--it is a big temptation for people to do stuff only for the purpose of you linking to them. That's weird. Maybe it could be called a pseduo-blog (after pseduo-event)—a blog post that is posted for pure publicity/PR).

I enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good work!

Joshua Sowin

Phil Johnson said...

Peter:

I often read your blog, and I actually saw your post there before I saw your comments at Doug's. I can't recall how I originally found your blog, but it was at least a couple of months ago.

My occasional "bellicosity" isn't actually related to my Calvinism. I'll argue against Arminianism, but I'm not one of those who thinks everything short of 5-point Calvinism is damnable heresy.

On the other hand, I do think some ideas are damnable heresy. JW's who come to my door aren't likely to leave with the impression that I am broad-minded or sympathetic to their denials of the deity of Christ.

And for precisely the same reason, people whose theology begins with a denial of original sin don't usually fine me particularly indulgent toward their brand of heresy.

Original sin is not uniquely Calvinistic. So my unyielding intolerance for Pelagianism and its lookalikes has nothing to do with "Calvinism"; it's provoked by a love for the more essential truths of Christianity.

Anyway, welcome to the comments section of my blog. I promise I won't get bellicose if you promise not to use my blogcomments as a forum to attack the very foundations of biblical truth.

Last time we corresponded, if I recall correctly, you were in Waco and I was in Maharashtra. Now I see you're the one overseas. If you ever make it back to SoCal, I'd love to meet you.

Michael Spencer said...

For the record Phil, I have NEVER said I represent the reformation better than you or anyone else. Where that good brother picked that one up, I don't know. And he says I "don't like" certain people, which is just bizarre. I have several pro-Piper articles. I am always grateful and respectful to Dr. Macarthur in my writing. What's with this: if you disagree you "Don't Like" these people? I work with Calvinists, pray with them, worship with them. I'm a supply at a Presby church. Just because I eschew a label doesn't mean I don't "like" these people. I respect and appreciate them. I accept them as brothers and disagree with them in a mutual regard for Christ above all (I hope.) But its all or nothing out here in the blogosphere.

And remember what lil brudder's will do to you when you are asleep or gone :-)

Phil Johnson said...

Michael,

Eschew all other labels if you like; I hope "li'l brudder" sticks.
It's a good name for a monk, if you ask me.

--Trogdor the Burninator

Greg Linscott said...

If BlogSpotting does go...

"the good times are definitely over."

Aw, man! Now my head isn't duct-taped to the TV anymore!

Phil Johnson said...

I caught that reference, Greg, even if no one else did.

You're basically saying that you have bug-in-mouth disease, right?

Bryan said...

keep the blog spotting, it's a good way to find other blogs, but I understand how it can take up a lot of time. Perhaps you could do it by weekly and have a limit of links as was suggested earlier.

Bryan
SDG

pgepps said...

Phil, fair 'nuff. If I do make SoCal, I'll make a point to drop by. I have more than a few friends around, so it would be no huge problem.

I try to avoid saying "deny" about anything most folks in church history have found orthodox, these days. A few years ago I was much less temperate about the matter.

I still find myself unable to reconcile some elements of classical theology with Bible truth, but I find myself trying to reconcile them, now, not to lop off chunks. That is sometimes a strain, but seems important to me.

Please feel free to drop a comment on my blog anytime you think it may help.

Take care,
PGE

YnottonY said...

Hi Phil,

I am glad that you started to blog. I don't mind the blogspotting. I find that my scroll feature works quite well when I prefer to pass something by. It is interesting to see so many people commenting after each post.

Anyway, I look forward to your future blogs. I just started blogging last Friday, so check mine out if your have the time. I just wrote one on Stereoscopic Calvinism and cited your Primer on Hyper-Calvinism. I am glad you wrote that piece. It has been very helpful. Incidently, I have also listened to Curt Daniel's lectures at SermonAudio.com and I know you have been to his church and lectured. I have listened to some of your lectures and profited. In case you are curious, I attend Believers Chapel in Dallas, Texas. I know you are familiar with Dr. S. Lewis Johnson. I am also speaking regularly with David Ponter. I am sure you remember him :-)

Anyway, I look forward to reading your blog. Keep up the interesting posts and cool graphics! Blogspotting is ok by me.

Cindy said...

I agree that blogging in itself tends to be self-congratulatory, or at least self-centered. After all, one is showcasing one's thoughts for all to see, assuming anyone cares. :)

To tell the truth, I'm a little jealous that I didn't think of blogspotting first. When I was a high school newspaper staffer, we knew that the more names we threw into the paper, the more people would buy it. Everyone wants to see their name in print!

Phil, when you used to link me on your regular website, I got an e-mail from a Bible college friend I hadn't heard from in over 25 years, a guy who happens to be an acquaintance of yours. He said, "For a lot of us, when you're linked on Phil Johnson's website, you've ARRIVED!"

So I see blogspotting, Phil, not so much as your vainglorious self-backpatting, but as a gracious way for you to share the blogging "wealth." Blogspot on, as far as I'm concerned! :)

Carla said...

Phil - I like the blogspotting - I've found some pretty great blogs this way. Besides, you mention me from time to time and it does wonders for the ego, eh?

Pffft... :o)

Scott Aniol said...

Hey Phil, if you edit your blogspot posts, is there some way you could note that at the top? I don't look for edits unless I know there are edits!

Greg Linscott said...

Re: "bug in mouth"

That's right, Dairy Queen.

For those of you who have absolutely no idea...

http://homestarrunner.com/buginmouth.html

geoffrobinson said...

Dude, I never said no one reads your blog. But you may need therapy. :)

Patrick said...

Phil,

Keep up the blogspotting.. It helps me in two ways:

1) Exposes me to other bloggers who are pyro afficionados.

2) More traffic to my blog. (in one week you brought in 48 referrals from your site to mine -- thank you!).

-Patrick

SJ Camp said...

Dear Phil:

I like the BlogSpotting - it is fun and very entertaining. But you have one of the most keen theological minds of our day... I so appreciate your preaching of the Word and the insights the Lord gives you through careful exegetical study. Could there be more of that kind of thing included? So many issues; so little time. Maybe a balance of both would be good.

Love pyro... It is a daily stop on the audienceone train.
Campi

samuel said...

Is it possible that my comment is going to go directly under "God loves Justice" Steve freaking Camp? Sorry, I got starstruck. Pathetic, considering Steve freaking Camp's comments. I love the blog, I am for the blogspotting and my daughter just fell asleep in the chair in my office (a sure sign that I need to be a parent and stop grovelling before Trogdor and Steve, wow, Steve Camp). Seriously, Steve Camp's ministry really impacted my life for God's glory. And Phil, well, you are on the road.