Fordham Wasting Half Their Day On Flypaper?

Asked how much blogging is enough (at today's blogger summit), the Ed Sector's Kevin Carey said that one good post a day seemed like a good amount for people like him.  As for other research and advocacy organizations that have recently upped the ante in terms of frequent posts and multimedia, Carey said something along the lines of the following: "If the Fordham Foundation wants to waste half its day blogging, that's their decision."  Swap!  Talk about a flyswatter.

Comments

[Marc Dean Millot]

"How much is enough" blogging depends on your mission, your resources, and your decision about how to use the media.

For a news aggregator offering readers a view of what's important out there on the web - like TWIE, several posts per day is required.

For a policy shop or individual hoping to become or remain part of the buzz, one good brief swipe, observation or kudos might do it. As long as the policy shop can put out decent studies, I don't see the problem.

If I were in charg, I would want to track time spent and get some idea of value added. Still my gut is that the settlement of blog space will have a relatively low payoff now, but those who claim and improve their land will find it quite valuable as today's web-dependent generations rise to positions of authority. Other things being equal I think it makes a lot of sense for outfits like Fordham and Edsector to fill up as much blog time and space as they can, and frankly regardless of the value of their content.

For me at edbizbuzz, where I've decided the blog will be my vehicle for opinion and analysis client's wont pay for directly, something like three decent essays, a guest column and some market information seems to be about the threshold for staying on blog gate keepers radar screens. But that adds up to at least 20 percent of my time.

[Sherman Dorn]

I'm with Marc Dean Millot here, for the reasons he stated and one more: it takes a while to settle into a regular pace and voice. Thus far, I can see valuable contributions emerging already from Flypaper: When an internal debate appears on an issue, it's a fascinating draw unmatched by single-author blogs or even multi-author blogs not from the same institution. I'll trust the folks at Fordham to sort out what issues they can respond to immediately and what ones they really need to sleep on. (It's my aesthetic judgment, perhaps, but I don't think they've hit a productive version of snark yet.)

I'm surprised you didn't mention Fordham Factor along with this -- it started about the same time and is similarly ... uh ... experimental.

[fbo fordham]

here's what the flyboys had to say about this post:

"Bloggers summit features anti-blogging bloggers

Someone once wrote, “You can’t trust Alexander Russo to report on a school bake sale and give an accurate account of the price of brownies,” so one hesitates to put much stock in this post. It is nonetheless peculiar that a gaggle of bloggers would criticize other bloggers for blogging, or that they would inveigh against time-wasting while sitting on a panel, discussing blogging. Certainly Flypaper’s frequent posting is a benefit to our readers, who desire timely analysis and opinion on the day’s education issues. And for those who would rather imbibe an occasional off-the-cuff observation or two, perhaps about baseball or Howard Stern, other outlets exist."

does all those arguments crammed in together end up sounding a little defensive? you bet it does. thanks, boys.