[dend]

Fair feedback. In my eyes, I treat any personal site as a digital garden - I am not really sticking to the "pure" definition. If you are putting an effort to curate and grow your own site, is that not a digital garden? I think it is, but that's my own take on it.

I intentionally try to avoid sites that are in any shape _not_ personal or otherwise representative of an individual trying to stake their little corner of the internet.

[mikae1]

Thanks for replying. :)

> If you are putting an effort to curate and grow your own site, is that not a digital garden?

That's really stretching the definition IMO.

What characterizes a garden is the slow growth and constant pruning — the making of a personal wiki. https://indieweb.org/digital_garden and https://maggieappleton.com/garden-history are good intros to gardens.

Most of the websites I visited seemed to be and forget sites targeted at potential employers.

[wink]

I dunno, sounds more like some gate keeping, or maybe I'm biased because I hate the term for no discernible reason.

> has content of different levels of development, is imperfect and often a playground for experimentation, learning, revising, iteration, and growth for diverse content

So because I polish my "posts" to a certain degree before publishing it's not a digital garden? Because 50% of my blog posts are "timeless" in a sense that they're about... stuff that exists.. not current dvelopments it's not a digital garden? Becuase I never delete stuff (as if people with wikis would delete stuff :P)... and so on.

I mean, I couldn't care less but I feel (and this seems to be a common theme) that the indieweb people are mostly dogmatic about their definitions and not very encouraging (also why I tried to take part in the irc channel years ago and left, frustrated).

But yeah, if someone want to own the definition of blog and digital garden and not accepting a certain overlap with "personal website", sure.

[mikae1]

> I dunno, sounds more like some gate keeping, or maybe I'm biased because I hate the term for no discernible reason.

I'm not too fond of the term either, but I think that's because it got gentrified and somewhat misunderstood. Everything personal on the web was suddenly a garden.

> But yeah, if someone want to own the definition of blog and digital garden and not accepting a certain overlap with "personal website", sure.

Of course there's a overlap. My point was not that the listed sites had to fulfill the criteria for classification, but if there's not a single hint of gardening going on, then we might as well call en.wikipedia.org a blog?

Also, is a website "personal" if it's just there to market your services? Sure, it's personal as in your website, but content wise it's not particularly personal. Gardens or personal wikis are usually not there to market services, but to build some kind of personal knowledge base (that other nerds, not employers, might find interesting).

[wink]

Point taken, maybe I got a little sidetracked with the direction of the discussion and not the original website and its content. FWIW, I think there are wikis that are non-personal (wikipedia, tech, etc) and there can be websites by individuals that are just "marketing" in the wider sense, but I would not call them personal website. (i.e. jsut a portfolio or "here are my socials")

[econ]

I don't care much for labels. I have one rule for websites that everyone should follow (lol): whatever you are doing, keep doing it, stick to the theme/topic, stick to the update frequency. It is only wrong if you change either.

[dend]

I amended the description to better reflect the work. Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate the pointers to the IndieWeb and Maggie's sites.

[zeroq]

No, it's not.

If you keep calling your dog a "cat" it won't start meowing.

The list is really disappointing, not only it's hard to find an actual digital garden on the list, most aren't even blogs, but simple resumes or portfolios.