[Udo]

> The point is the meat remains, even as all the excerpt and link stuff has mostly moved to Twitter.

I thought I addressed that by saying:

"According to the article, a large part of where blogging moved on to seems to be mere social link aggregation and propagation."

Update: I just realized you're the author of the article; I'm sorry you feel misrepresented, that wasn't my intention. I think my main problem is reconciling sensationalist statements like 'blogs as streams of regular essays are mostly over' with points that follow later on the basis of 'the meaty content remains relevant'. You might argue that I put the emphasis on something other than what was intended; maybe the central claim was 'link blogs are over', but in that case there would be very little need to have that particular discussion at all.

[monkbent]

That was my only point. Sullivan type 40 post a day blogs don't make much sense anymore, but the entire premise of my article is that blogs still matter and can still be a business.

Cheers