I don't mean to be calling anyone out, but after a discussion in the comments section of this post, I've put up a new poll, and I think it's an important one.
For the almost-year that the LAMB has been around, I've tried to be as open as possible to new sites wishing to join. We all know that the definition of a "blog" is hazy to begin with, so that just adds to the confusion, but I've tried not to make judgement calls. If someone has a site that's at least generally about movies (hard to nail down a percentage - let's say 40%), I'm likely to "allow" them in, regardless of the style; you don't have to have a site pre-ordained by Blogger or Wordpress or Typepad or whatever - if you write about movies and/or pop culture in general at length, you're essentially in.
Along with those parameters comes the one about how "old" should a site be. I've heard from various members that I shouldn't let a site in until they've been live for X days, be that 30, 60, 90, or 180. That doing so "waters down" the sites that are already members, and the LAMB in general.
Whenever this comes up, I think back to when I first started Blog Cabins; it was damn hard to get traffic in the beginning, and I would have loved a place like the LAMB (and I'm not just tooting my own horn). I was actively looking for other movie blogs, but wasn't up for random Google searches. I wanted to find them somewhat organically, making a friend, then checking out their blogroll, and so on and so forth. Well, a place like this kind of does half that work for you. The profiles allow readers to get a general sense of what the member sites are doing and a hint at their personality (maybe). And that goes for brand newbies as well.
When that topic of watering down came up, I have always said that having too many LAMBs (or prospective LAMBs) is what I call a good problem - it's much better than the alternative. It might seem like a small or insignificant thing, but I don't take the prospect of turning people away lightly, so there's got to be a good reason, as I don't want people to have a bad taste in their mouths. However, with us approaching 200 sites, perhaps it's a valid query, and I'd like to know what you all think - basically, I'm giving the decision to the masses, like I've always tried to do, and I'll trust the decision you make. Maybe. ;)
Thanks,
Fletch
For the almost-year that the LAMB has been around, I've tried to be as open as possible to new sites wishing to join. We all know that the definition of a "blog" is hazy to begin with, so that just adds to the confusion, but I've tried not to make judgement calls. If someone has a site that's at least generally about movies (hard to nail down a percentage - let's say 40%), I'm likely to "allow" them in, regardless of the style; you don't have to have a site pre-ordained by Blogger or Wordpress or Typepad or whatever - if you write about movies and/or pop culture in general at length, you're essentially in.
Along with those parameters comes the one about how "old" should a site be. I've heard from various members that I shouldn't let a site in until they've been live for X days, be that 30, 60, 90, or 180. That doing so "waters down" the sites that are already members, and the LAMB in general.
Whenever this comes up, I think back to when I first started Blog Cabins; it was damn hard to get traffic in the beginning, and I would have loved a place like the LAMB (and I'm not just tooting my own horn). I was actively looking for other movie blogs, but wasn't up for random Google searches. I wanted to find them somewhat organically, making a friend, then checking out their blogroll, and so on and so forth. Well, a place like this kind of does half that work for you. The profiles allow readers to get a general sense of what the member sites are doing and a hint at their personality (maybe). And that goes for brand newbies as well.
When that topic of watering down came up, I have always said that having too many LAMBs (or prospective LAMBs) is what I call a good problem - it's much better than the alternative. It might seem like a small or insignificant thing, but I don't take the prospect of turning people away lightly, so there's got to be a good reason, as I don't want people to have a bad taste in their mouths. However, with us approaching 200 sites, perhaps it's a valid query, and I'd like to know what you all think - basically, I'm giving the decision to the masses, like I've always tried to do, and I'll trust the decision you make. Maybe. ;)
Thanks,
Fletch
