please empty your brain below
What I've found is that because I write reviews as well as ordinary posts, these always receive the least number of comments initially, but they are posts that can still be receiving comments months and even years later. Probably because they are the most likely to actually be what people surfing in from search engines were actually looking for.

Alan | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 8:56 a.m. | #

The Archives Should remain a neutral buffer incase of invasion by technology.

strandman | 09.10.06 - 9:46 a.m. | #

I would agree with Alan, I still get lots of comments on old postings - mostly as a result of people arriving there from search.

Also: I link to postings in your archives occasionally - because there's bound to be a topic that you have written about that is relevant to most Londoners!

Jag | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 9:48 a.m. | #

I don't think organising by date is the way to go... It's answering the question "what did this person think in July 2003" which is quite rare a thing to ask. I think it's more likely that people would be interested in more subject related queries, such as "where are all the other I spy london features".

However, in my case, people seem far more interested in a selection of historic posts that by a quirk of google, have matched their particular search and interaction ceases before it begins.

ian | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 10:51 a.m. | #

Hmmm I understand what you are saying about the "reading old posts in isolation" issue but as others have mentioned, most of the time when someone hits an archived post it's because they have 'found it' either via a referrer to to the post itself or via a generic search.

What good would context do in that instance?

My archives are held both monthly and by category, although I'm still hacking through old posts to re-categorise them. But of course you can't yet do that with Blogger so you are left with the option you are using.

Immediacy is what it says. It is the here and now. As soon as a post is no longer 'immediate' (either due to content or by post date) then the rules change. Although I guess everyone has their own interpretation as to what they become.

Gordon | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 11:01 a.m. | #

Hmm. I sort of agree with you - and as Gordon said, with Blogger you (and I) are limited by not being able to categorise our archived posts, thus leaving readers only being able to view older writing by month (rather than by subject). I guess this does mean that much of the older stuff does then become redundant in some way - in that it doesn't get read unless it's through a search engine hit.

But saying that, I often (well, when I have time - right now, not that frequently) pick a month at random in someone's blog to peruse: it's fun to discover older writing - out of context - that you may not be as familiar with. And I enjoy seeing how someone's writing might have changed: by looking at an older month and comparing it to a newer one, interesting comparisons can be made. So I'm not quite sure that "99\\% of all blog content" becomes irrelevant.

Not in your case dg, anyway.

The Girl | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 11:49 a.m. | #

I beg to differ. Quite apart from the way I trawl and link to your archives shamelessly, the reason that you turn up in searches is slightly different. It is because Google reckons you have a decent site. Fact is, they mostly get that evaluation right.

So someone heading here for a castro hat in Hillingdon (must try to get a picture of that, by the way) if they don't find exactly what they are looking for will find other Good Stuff.

Perfectly illustrated by the guy who came to my site last night searching for "DP girl pics" and then spent some time looking around. I'd say Iwould have liked to see his face but on reflection, NO webcam is a GOOD idea in that instance.

Ham | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 11:50 a.m. | #

I agree up to a point - I use my own archives a lot to see what I said, and when - and in that context, it's kind of like reading back over one's old diaries.

But also, one of my busiest, and most commented-upon posts is *way* back in my Jan '05 archive about CoProxamol and its withdrawal. So *shrug* I think archives have their uses.

Lyle | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 12:06 p.m. | #

In the rare event of someone purposely trawling through my archives (and me noticing), I find it unnerving. Most visitors to my archives are indeed arriving via search engines, and I'm finding that the older my blog gets - and therefore the larger my backlogue of archives grows - the more often I possess the right collection of words for someone's quirky search. So much so, that a once novelty type of visitor now accounts for about 45\\% of my traffic. Kind of depressing.

Huw | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 12:09 p.m. | #

Tomorrow's e-chip paper...

It's funny. For instance, my favourite blog is Little Red Boat. And I love Anna to bits as a real person, like. But I've never had the slightest inclination to go back through and read her archives from scratch. It would seem...

...a bit too much like reading somebody's personal diary.

Which is FUCKING BIZARRE cos that's what blogs are. I didn't articulate that very well.

I occasionlly get people emailing saying they've just read my entire archive, etc. I find that really odd.

JonnyB | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 1:13 p.m. | #

I found your blog from a Google Search for something else about 18 months ago. It took me to one of your posts 2003. That was the first blog I ever saw in fact. I have been a daily reader since finding you from that old post. So, maybe they are worthwhile?

emma | 09.10.06 - 1:34 p.m. | #

This is why I've taken to only displaying the latest posting, because yesterday's is dead and gorn..

Mr.D | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 1:46 p.m. | #

I decided to do some housekeeping on my blog and discovered a lot of old posts that really don't matter any more. Short, spur of the moment. Or stuff like "United won today, I wonder if they'll win the Premiership". Which is useless info-wise because anyone who's genuinely interested will know the answer.

I kept a full copy and deleted entries, mainly for server disc-space. I also de-categorised a great number of posts eg "News", but I know from my site stats that certain categories act as a coherent blog-within-a-blog.

I frame music reviews and restaurant/hotel/holiday accounts with one eye on search engines and occasionally get comments or emails of thanks from people who are eg planning much the same holiday as I did say three years ago.

I see my readership as four types, three of which I treasure: the Front Page readers, mainly bloggers and a few friends/relatives; Pláci fans who actually outnumber the Front Pagers, plus other specific opera/music or Labour Party blog readers; and sensible googlers, looking for information on holidays, restaurants, books, records, issues, health, you name it.

And the pr0n etc googlers or those determined to find naked pictures of Cristiano Ronaldo, or find out the size of Frank Lampard's cock, etc

Gert | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 2:21 p.m. | #

I've long thought the DG archives on historical and architectural topics could easily be transformed into a unique guidebook to London and environs.

What with all the new publishing technology like Amazon Advantage and BookSurge, it wouldn't be too hard to accomplish... since getting the content seems to be the main obstacle. Though I'd imagine a more innovative tour format might somehow be geared towards Wi-Fi internet users, rather than just a paper book.

I find that mulling through those DG archives is fascinating reading, though often some of the links have expired.

John | Homepage | 09.10.06 - 4:10 p.m. | #

Your archives are great reading for quiet moments, and how I found you. To 50 more pages!

Another Andrew | 09.10.06 - 4:29 p.m. | #

I also pass away many a quiet moment reading your archives. They're an endless source of fascination. Keep up the good work, DG.

Johnny Topaz | 09.10.06 - 5:56 p.m. | #

Agree with John. When are we going to see the definitive London guide, DG?

elaine | 09.10.06 - 9:44 p.m. | #

I like blog archives. I keep my own set up by month and, on occasion, I like to dive in and read the archives of other bloggers, DG included. What's funny is that I have a fear to comment on old posts... To get over that irrational fear, I'm now going to comment on every archived post on your blog. = ; - )

minijonb | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 12:34 a.m. | #

I think the blog archives are a useful resource too. I have occassionaly trawled through a month or two of DG archives, I always wish I had more time to do so as there is such a lot of intersting posts, the number of links means there is never a shortage of stuff to read.
But with so many blogs out there and new material being generated all the the time one can never keep up.

Jon Allen | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 1:54 a.m. | #

DG,

I came across your blog through a search engine, looking for either bus or underground links (sad I know) but then I got into your blog on a daily basis and I then decided to go back to inception to see what else you had written. I think your style is very entertaining and is readable as a journal in "chunks" like that. Some is irrelevant, some not so good! but I would definately keep the archives going, for prosperity or at least till the book deal gets finalised!

Mick | 10.10.06 - 7:43 a.m. | #

Mick, I think you mean posterity. Very few people make decent money out of writing, even with a book deal.

Fatima | 10.10.06 - 8:54 a.m. | #

I've read quite a bit of your archive but still have lots to go so don't go deleting it, will you?

Sharon J | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 3:19 p.m. | #

I understand what JonnyBmeans. I find it a bit weird reading the archive of somebody I have met before I read them. If I have not met the person though and start reading them regularly I tend to go through the entire archive. I guess I must have too much time on my hands.

stroppycow | Homepage | 10.10.06 - 8:25 p.m. | #

As one of the 'terminally bored', that's how I found DG, and I did read backwards for quite some time. For me it's one of the joys of finding a new blog, and if google is giving you strange referrers then save them up and use them as a post.
Everyone else does.

poons | 11.10.06 - 12:45 a.m. | #

I would guess that those who go back into blog archives are rather the same sort who go into the back rooms of libraries and browse around. The newest books are not necessarily (rarely) the best. And sometimes we find a new-to-us author, and then go back and read all their earlier books. So, yes, keep them. I have just found your blog today, October 11, and will surely make my way back into the archives.

Anonymous | 11.10.06 - 3:37 p.m. | #

I love archives pages. If I'm bored, which is often, and at a loose end, which is seldom, I will often delve into a monthsworth of writing from ages past and consume it all at once like a big wordy doughnut.

The only time I ever come across single entry pages is when I hit a blog through google or am following a link.

Archives are good things, and read. Never doubt your archives.

Though clearly I am doubting mine after the revalation that my most famous (and effusive, blimey) fan above can't be arsed to read them.

Tut.

anna | Homepage | 12.10.06 - 4:51 p.m. | #

I, too, discovered DG through a search engine referral to an archived post.

Simstim | Homepage | 13.10.06 - 1:33 p.m. | #

I have no idea whether you get notified when someone comments on your posts, let alone such an old one, but I thought this one a particularly appropriate one to say how much I'm enjoying going through all your old posts. It's fascinating to read about things like the Olympic redevelopment or Crossrail, knowing how it's all turned out now but seeing it from the perspective of a few years before. So thanks for preserving your archives (even if most of the links don't work nowadays!)

Stuart | 12.01.17 - 12:19 a.m. | #

Definitely keep the archives. Lockdown wouldn't be the same without them!

Sally | 20.06.20 - 7:36 p.m. | #











TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy