[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.