11
\$\begingroup\$

Rebecca Chernoff just posted about a new Stack Exchange feature: SE-site-specific blogs.

It seems to me that, with all of the photo blogs out there, there's plenty of good topics to write about. (Heck, we even have a highly-upvoted question dedicated to photo blogs.)

Of course, that may also mean that there's market saturation -- but personally I don't think that's the case. Even if we just replay the photo-of-the-week from the header, I'd say it's worthwhile.

Rebecca's first step in getting a SE blog is "Raise the idea on the child meta." Check.

Her next step is "Define the scope and purpose of the blog." I'd say that, if the idea itself passes muster (as determined by the comments & votes here), then we could create a new question to define the scope.

\$\endgroup\$

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
11
\$\begingroup\$

Yes! Yes we should. This would be a great way for several of the "out-of-scope" activities we're interested in here. My particular interest, for example, would be a weekly post highlighting the best new answers of that week, and maybe some other old under-appreciated but awesome answers. (Even though answers are the "pearls", questions are far more visible.) Right now, there's really no place to do that.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1! Excellent idea with the best new answers and under-appreciated answers. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Jun 23, 2011 at 21:28
2
\$\begingroup\$

I'll answerise a couple of things discussed in the chat here - a couple of ideas for possible posts/series:

  • DIY and 'on the cheap' photography, for example macro with reversing rings or extension tubes
  • Wet Weekend photo projects you can do at home
  • Post-event 'diary' posts where techniques can be shared, e.g. airshows or sports events

etc etc.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

It seems a good idea.

A blog could also be the place for discussions, so that when there is a topic which is interesting but is not really answerable (and so should be closed since this is a Q&A site) instead of "losing the chance" it could become the matter of a blog post and of the ensuing comment thread.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ In term of the internet as a whole, some blogs are discussions and some are just a post. We need to decide whether this blog (if we're doing it) is a discussion or a post. \$\endgroup\$
    – rfusca
    Jun 23, 2011 at 20:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rfusca: or there could be both cases. Along a series of posts there could be room once in a while for saving some topic which was not "a real question" but was nonetheless interesting. \$\endgroup\$
    – Francesco
    Jun 23, 2011 at 20:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Things that don't make good questions, but are typically on topic, tend to do pretty well in chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – rfusca
    Jun 23, 2011 at 20:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rfusca: true and I have enjoyed the chat but chat is Real Time while blogging is not, so it can allow different timezones and different timing (after work, after caring for kids, during lunch break, whatever). \$\endgroup\$
    – Francesco
    Jun 23, 2011 at 20:18
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Francesco - Actually a lot of the chat takes place in distinctly non real time due to SE full transcripts and excellent notification system. Interesting topics are great for blogs, but I don't think we should specifically encourage questions that we close to become blog entries. \$\endgroup\$
    – rfusca
    Jun 23, 2011 at 20:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rfusca: point taken and I agree that the notification system is great. It's just that due to work/time constraints I know that the chat is not always suitable for me, while a blog could be. But obviously mine was just a proposal and if it turns out that it was not a well thought one, no problem! :-) \$\endgroup\$
    – Francesco
    Jun 23, 2011 at 20:34
-4
\$\begingroup\$

Here's a "No" answer, just for those who want to vote but don't want to write out an explanation.

If you are against the idea of a Photo.SE blog, vote up this answer... or, better yet, explain why in your own answer (so people can upvote your reason against).

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ And how are votes to be counted? If one agrees with "No" does he upvote or downvote? I am asking because currently there are 2 downvotes and to me the intent is not clear... \$\endgroup\$
    – Francesco
    Jun 24, 2011 at 17:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Heh, I didn't consider people downvoting the "no" vote (or the "yes" votes for that matter). \$\endgroup\$
    – Craig Walker
    Jun 24, 2011 at 17:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ I created this question just to get general consensus. So far there's a strong "yes" trend and no "no" trend across all the answers, so I don't think that we'll need to actually count votes. In the end, as long as there's enough interest & contributors to make the blog work, it doesn't matter how many people are against it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Craig Walker
    Jun 24, 2011 at 17:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .