I write and read blogs mostly in a professional capacity as a web developer. I find a lot of insight very easily through a few hundred RSS subscriptions and the occasional surfing. For the most part I'm pretty accepting of what people write, even if I disagree with the author, or they show some ignorance on certain points. Even though there's a stereotype that you have to be smart to be a programmer, I see it as more of a personality trait: attention to detail, desire to find order, tenacious problem-solving, etc. Unlike some programmers, I don't see other professions (eg. executives, marketing) as full of clueless idiots. I like to think I'm good at what I do, but not that what I do is somehow better than what others do.
When I blog, I try to stick to topics of immediate experience where I think I actually have something meaningful to contribute. For this reason, my blog is highly technical and doesn't usually attempt broad theses. As I get older I find myself able to distill out more general concepts, but I still try to keep it pretty focused. I would love to be a Paul Graham or Joel Spolsky (or even a Steve Yegge) where I could convincingly support a fairly subjective thesis. Maybe I'll get there some day...
So I plod along with my little blog. For years I've written this thing. I've received occasional praise, met some cool people. Yet I've never cracked 1000 subscribers. Which in a way is good because I don't think Internet fame would agree with me. Internet debates are a cesspool of moronic flamewars. We should thank them for making politics look rational and civilized. Complete and utter waste of time.
Oh yeah, and absolute crack.
I suppose that's why my desire to be reasonable and my troll-gullibility collide, spawning my greatest time-wasting pet peeve of all time:
The Grandiose Bullshitter
The grandiose bullshitter is a person regularly writes seemingly huge and life-changing theories, but consistently lacking either a credible argument or cohesive prose. Generally they are not trolling, and the thesis may even be sensible, but the writing tends towards a stream of consciousness style lacking in facts and evidence, and punctuated by unreasonable or irrelevant assumptions and examples. Occasionally you get the feeling that the author has absolutely no experience at all with the subject at hand, and is just elaborating on a passing thought they had while sitting on the toilet.
So why does it bug me so much?
For some reason this seems to be a perverse formula for success. I suppose because they tend to write about general topics that everyone has an opinion about, but then write so poorly that people feel the need to put in their two cents. Pretty soon the comments and trackbacks are flooding in, The Google juice surges, and adsense is netting hundreds of dollars a month.
The worst part is that it's like a train wreck I can't tear my eyes away from. The volume of comments increases to the point where one-off potshots drown out any rational discourse. The author comes back and responds to a few choice comments with further non-sequitors. "Missing the point" is a common argument, and valid since the writing lacks clarity to begin with. The fetid slop churns for a few days or weeks, perhaps further putrified by a Digg or Stumble.
And all I can do is wait for the next post to see just how wrong it is. God I need to pull the plug.