A Serious Post About My Navel

This blog isn't a hobby enterprise anymore and hasn't been for some time, so it occurs to me that perhaps I should ask you, the reading public, what you think in terms of the balance of content. Does it make sense to invest more time at the margin to doing serious posts on the issues that are harder to put together, or is it better to dedicate energy to assembling lots of quick links to interesting commentary and articles around the internet?

Obviously, I continue to do both, but I wonder if people feel it would be better to alter the mix in one direction or another.

Comments

More basketball blogging.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 3:13 PM

More cowbell.

Posted by blah | November 1, 2007 3:14 PM

No to quick links. Boring. Especially with enigmatic comments. As in, "It's not altogether itself, but may be interesting." Either it's awesome or nothing. Don't waste our time.

Posted by chris | November 1, 2007 3:16 PM

More on angels on a needle philosophy.

Posted by gregor | November 1, 2007 3:16 PM

Me, I don't like the long posts on serious issues so much, least of all the ones containing graphs. I don't like graphs. I like the short punchy post, in which you say something funny and nasty, preferably about Marty Peretz. If you want to wax serious on a topic, write an article and link to it. Otherwise, talk trash, please.

Posted by david mizner | November 1, 2007 3:16 PM

A section of links that connect to your most fortuitous misspellings and grammar mistakes.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 1, 2007 3:17 PM

What you obviously need is a lot of short links t other peoples's silly posts, followed by, "Heh, indeed".

Posted by rea | November 1, 2007 3:18 PM

I read you to remain well informed without spending as much time as you do staying informed. So:

Links: really like when you find the pertinent pieces on web-sites that I otherwise would not visit.

Commentary: really like the more substantive pieces, in particular when you go a level deeper into some topic people are talking about which shows that common wisdom is / is not telling the whole story.

Thanks and good luck!

Posted by Paul | November 1, 2007 3:18 PM

The mix is fine but please, please, get a spell checker. It used to be cute but in a major publication like the Atlantic it's just unnecessary to have so many misspellings.

Posted by matt | November 1, 2007 3:18 PM

Make your blog more like Facebook.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 3:18 PM

More blogging about your navel. I'd say you want about a 1:2 ratio of posts about your navel as opposed to posts not about your navel.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 3:20 PM

I actually like the current mix. Wouldn't change a thing, except to consider the use of spell check.

Posted by IP Guy | November 1, 2007 3:23 PM

I'll second Petey's first comment (the sane one). Prior to the primaries heating up, when the political scene was kindof dead, you had some good, consistent basketball blogging going on, and the comment threads were always great. Bring it back.

Posted by trouc | November 1, 2007 3:24 PM

Matt,

I only started reading you a few days ago, but quickly became a fan. I think you should do what you do better than most anyone: trenchant no-bullshit analysis of politics & current affairs -- from a principled liberal pov. Anyone can assemble links to interesting commentary. In fact, programs can do it (though not as well). I can get it from Comment Central & countless others. So I say devote your energy to the uncompromising analytical thought which sets you apart.

B.

Posted by Ben | November 1, 2007 3:24 PM

Well how about 'New Needle, Fuck You' posts?

Posted by gregor | November 1, 2007 3:24 PM

I'll second Petey's first comment (the sane one). Prior to the primaries heating up, when the political scene was kindof dead, you had some good, consistent basketball blogging going on, and the comment threads were always great. Bring it back.

Posted by trouc | November 1, 2007 3:25 PM

Ditto on the spell-checking, but a great deal of your errors are with homophones. You also omit crucial words pretty frequently. Obviously a spell-checker won't catch either of these.

Just re-read the damn thing a few times before you hit send.

Posted by JH | November 1, 2007 3:25 PM

Don't change to short links. We have Atrios for that. I go to Atrios first to get a quick gauge of what's happening, but then I read you and Ezra and Digby for in-depth analysis. If you stopped doing the more in-depth stuff, you'd lose a lot of your purpose for me. I know what you're saying, "But Digby only does 1-2 posts a day cause they're so long."

I guess what I'm saying is, I like the mix right now. Shorter: badder.

Posted by Brian | November 1, 2007 3:26 PM

I'll second trouc's first comment (the non-duplicate one).

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 3:27 PM

I'm pretty much with Paul. All of us obsessed enough to read your blog every day probably go through a lot of the same big blogs in your part of the blogosphere: TPM, Tapped, Glenn Greenwald, etc. I like it a lot when you link to things like the climate change posts on those two sites you go to for environmental info but I'd never heard of before, which I bookmarked and check occasionally now.

But my favorite is definitely the longer stuff. As someone in academic research, I can't tell you how much more it makes me trust what you write that you're upfront about when you really feel you've spent a lot of time digging into a topic and when you're giving you initial feelings on the matter but don't feel confident in declaring yourself solid and unpersuadable on the matter. I also really like that on many questionable points where you feel strongly, you'll do sort of the blog equivalent of academic referencing, giving links to other people professionally in the discipline you're talking about or to journalists in major organizations whom you/we trust. So I really like it when you take the time to dig into something. It's amazing and all the sheer volume you put out every day, but I'd definitely sacrifice some of that for a few bigger projects.

Posted by Matt | November 1, 2007 3:27 PM

More Maoist news and Maoist culture.

Posted by Little Red Book | November 1, 2007 3:28 PM

I know this will sound trite, but I don't think you should be writing to suit your audience. Write on what you like, and your audience will find you. It's worked for you so far.

Oh, and USE THE FORCE, LUKE.

Posted by Glenn | November 1, 2007 3:30 PM

A Big Gulp-sized cup-holder would be a nice addition.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 1, 2007 3:32 PM

"A Big Gulp-sized cup-holder would be a nice addition."

I think a flat-screen TV and shag carpeting are higher priorities, to be honest.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 3:33 PM

I like it as it is.

But I'd prefer the "serious" path: Less entries, more reflection, more analysis, more depth. You are quite good at that, and that is the main reason why I read your blog every day.

So: Less navel, more door & window - that is my advice.

I'd also like it if you risked more.
F.e. when we users have to think twice to understand.
Or you are one-sided in a sound bite comment and rely on your readers' memory and reflection to complete your view.
But I suppose that is not a good advice, as many of your readers would not appreciate it ... and wingnut bloggers would abuse your text.

No problem with the misspellings. They remind me that you are a human like me.

Posted by Munich Lion | November 1, 2007 3:39 PM

I don't think long vs. short is really the issue, so much as insightful vs. merely interesting. Anyone can link to interesting stuff and even come up with some vague thought to justify a blog post of one's own. What your blogs have excelled at is offering insight: some new perspective or way of approaching an issue, so that after reading the post, I'm not just better informed but feel like I get it. And you do it mostly without succumbing to the infamous contrarianism-for-its-own-sake syndrome.

One little example: your post on how Dobson & the anti-abortion movement would handle a Giuliani candidacy. Considering how they might act to protect their interests as a movement is not earthshattering or anything and maybe if I got paid to sit around all day thinking about these things I would have thought about it too, but I don't, so I read you.

Posted by Christopher M | November 1, 2007 3:40 PM

My vote: the way you're doing it now is right.

Posted by Jason C. | November 1, 2007 3:43 PM

I like your current mix just fine. I refresh your blog more than any other during the course of a day. Good job, Matt. :)

Posted by Ron | November 1, 2007 3:44 PM

I would vote for slightly lower frequency/somewhat more in-depth. I don't see a lot of value in single-sentence posts with a link. I've got Memeorandum to tell me what "everybody" is talking about, I come here for your insight. (Don't let that swell your head, kid.)

Posted by Chris Conway | November 1, 2007 3:44 PM

I agree with gregor. More philosophical meanderings. That's what you majored in, right?

Posted by Jim W | November 1, 2007 3:44 PM

Current balance of long and short is good.

I personally have no interest in basketball blogging and I don't share your music taste. No problem, though - I just skip past those entries.

Posted by Allan | November 1, 2007 3:45 PM

I like the current mix, but if you were going to change it, I would vote for fewer/longer posts.

Posted by Captain Noble | November 1, 2007 3:48 PM

Quick and short is your comparative strength. Also polemics. No one else whom one might read would have the cojones to say that Giuliani has more child molesters than women at high levels on his staff --but someone's got to do it from time to time.

Posted by scott | November 1, 2007 3:49 PM

Good balance already, but definitely don't shift toward the 'quick hits' model. Sullivan does that more than you. I come to you for substance.

Also, you should develop an interest in European soccer and blog about that.

Posted by Ryan | November 1, 2007 3:50 PM

Your current format is really good. I enjoy the basketball blogging (though I wish there was more Bucks love, ok, they really sucked against Orlando last night) and all the other light-hearted stuff. My vote is for the status quo, how very unprogressive of me.

Posted by Scott | November 1, 2007 3:52 PM

I like the current mix, as well. More basketball posts would be good (even though my Sixers get regularly trashed in them).

Less reflexive commentary on anything the other Atlantic bloggers write about would be good, too.

Posted by Dantheman | November 1, 2007 3:52 PM

Your current format is really good. I enjoy the basketball blogging (though I wish there was more Bucks love, ok, they really sucked against Orlando last night) and all the other light-hearted stuff. My vote is for the status quo, how very unprogressive of me.

Posted by Scott | November 1, 2007 3:53 PM

More gazing of Sarah's navel, perhaps.

Or, conversely: More Pr0n Please!

The pictures of massive piles of fast food and attached commentary is also good. (as in "this table is about to collapse under the weight of this megadeth jumbo go-straight-to-emergency-room chilicheesebaconmorechilitripleburger and they only charged me $1.49 for it! More food than appears in the entire nation of Bumfuckistan's wildest dreams!")

Posted by burritoboy | November 1, 2007 3:53 PM

Whether it's an entirely good thing or not (and maybe that's your question), I think this is really an exemplary blog. I like the way you get your mix now - longer posts when you feel like it, shorter when you feel like it. Very well done.

Ditto, however, on some of the language carelessness - the wrong words and the grammar mistakes (I can't believe I read "a discussion between _____ and I" the other day! I know it's become trendy among Ignorant Young People to say '__ and I', but it's the opposite of charming. Slang and its attendant constructions can be charming; ignorance which thinks it's sophisticated, not so much). The misspellings don't bother me, so long as we can figure out what you're actually trying to say. Or if it's funny.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 1, 2007 3:53 PM

Current mix is fine.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | November 1, 2007 3:54 PM

I love this blog it just the way it is. Honestly.

To verge on big wet kisses, Matt: your eclectic personality and wide-ranging interests are what make this blog outstanding, and I would really advise you to avoid "focus grouping" your content and style like this. You have a great sense for writing articulately about(or linking to) what interests you at a particular moment-- I feel your writing is likely to become far duller if you try to second-guess the wants of your readership.

Posted by James Gary | November 1, 2007 3:54 PM

The spelling/typos thing drives me crazy. Everyone mentions it, partly because it's a "Jesus, if I wrote @ the Atlantic I might not have such great arguments, but at least I could freaking spell!" It's distracting.

Also, more goat-sex.

Posted by Here'sMine | November 1, 2007 3:55 PM

I think you should do what you're best at, which presumably is analyzing hard topics and bringing them down to earth with valuable and understandable metaphors.

Beyond that, my advice to bloggers has always been based in the past. Look to what newspaper columnists can do with their columns -- bundle them into books.

Do you have blog posts that can be rebundled in an interesting fashion? Yglesias TV? Yglesias on Environmentalism? Yglesias on humor? If not, you might want to consider that.

Personally, I think the way you argue some issues deeply and others at a shallow knee jerk level is asinine. The one thing I would hope a Harvard philosophy major could bring to the left would be an ability to avoid party driven, politically correct assumptions. But you seem to thrive on those.

What did Broder do to get where he is? Do that!

Posted by jerry | November 1, 2007 3:57 PM

Some people have said Matt ought to reduce typos. My view is he ought to DOUBLE typos!

Posted by Mitt Romney | November 1, 2007 4:01 PM

You have pretty much the right mix now.

Posted by John H. | November 1, 2007 4:04 PM

Matt: I think you've got the mix just about right. Sullivan, for instance, has gotten a lot too Instapunditish for my tastes (in his blogging style, not in his opinions, of course). I seriously wouldn't alter the balance at all.

Posted by Jasper | November 1, 2007 4:06 PM

Make more enemies. Blogging is really just 30s radio over again, and what made 30s radio great was the feuds - W.C. Fields versus Edgar Bergen's dummy, Fred Allan vs. Jack Benny. You have Kirchick, and Peretz, who are obligingly stupid. But now you need a smarter enemy. Not Megan - she has enough enemies to make a small phone book out of. I nominate Ezra Klein. You should nitpick him, find some minor thing that he gets wrong on healthcare, then trumpet it. Let the feud grow from there. Make up a good nickname - Kandy Klein, or Ezra De-Klein, or something like that. I'm sure Klein will cooperate.

Posted by roger | November 1, 2007 4:06 PM

Personally I think your strength is in the mid-range essay with some research content. I would suggest you leave the link+snark fests to Atrios and stay with the longer format (not sure what that length is in blog words: 300-500?).

I think you and blog both benefit from the mix of pure politics, sports, and urban planning that you have used for the last 2 years. You might want to think about how to deepen your sports analysis a bit.

Generally I think you are doing fine; the same can't be said for TPMCafe after your departure so you must add some value ;-) As I said at your old blog when you announced the move I think you are a good addition for The Atlantic. Eventually I assume you will want to move in the Fallows/Langschseise direction (or the big-dollar journo-pundit direction) but for now why not stay with what works?

Cranky

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 1, 2007 4:08 PM

You do both long and short well, but your best long posts are some of the best long blog posts I've ever read.

I particularly remember your dissection of the ethnic makeup of Iraq in August 2004 which convinced me once and for all that the whole enterprise was doomed to failure; "The Gospel According to Matthew" which briskly explained all the relevant details of why the Democrats needed to hang tough on Social Security; and the takedown of Max Boot on TPMCafe during the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. The short stuff is great and all, but more of these posts are what we really need.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 1, 2007 4:09 PM

Maybe you shouldn't go by me, since I'm disappointed that this post wasn't actually about your navel, but I like posts where there is something to respond to.

A quick, "This piece by Digby is interesting", isn't really something to respond to. You might as well be Atrios. (BTW, I like Atrios and Digby, but they already exist.)

The dialog you spawn is your niche in the liberal blogosphere. You start genuine conversations that keep going without active participation by you. That is unusual.

Posted by Njorl | November 1, 2007 4:17 PM

I would up the percentage of serious posts, and certainly not reduce it, but don't eliminate all short posts or posts with personal or non-serious content.

Posted by Martin | November 1, 2007 4:19 PM

Matt, do whatever you feel most motivated to do at any time. Even when done professionally, blogging burnout is a real risk so you have as much fun following your interests and doing what you are doing as you can. Willing to continue to trust your judgment on this.

Posted by Ben Brackley | November 1, 2007 4:19 PM

how about bigger type?

Posted by bmt | November 1, 2007 4:21 PM

how about bigger ... navels ooh

Posted by tmb | November 1, 2007 4:23 PM

More Europe, Russia and Asia, please.

I mean, this is supposed to be a cosmopolitan magazine, no? And while the umpteenth post about the US health-care system or the presidential race might be incredibly important or entertaining to some, it seems to me that most non-US and I bet a lot of US readers are inclined to shrug it off with a "yeah, well, whatever".

Also philosophy is always kind of fun.

Posted by novakant | November 1, 2007 4:24 PM

I'm in love with you, Matt.

Posted by Thomas | November 1, 2007 4:25 PM

More Al.

Posted by Al | November 1, 2007 4:26 PM

Definitely, definitely more proofreading. On no other blog that I read are there so many typos, and it's not just some trivial thing. In fact, I think the previous commenters are wrong, and what this blog needs is LESS spell-checking. Simple typos are easy for the reader to spot and mentally correct, typos corrected to valid words are more confusing. Just looking at what's on the front page right now, I see:
"This Gail Collins column is a mixed bad",
"Russert as debate moderate",
"in favor of a supermarkets",
"it'll take "4 or 5 more years" are continued", "to their being",
"History is written by the victors even a democracy",
"the Israeli side side has basically",
"the Israeli's feel",
"Clintonism wouldn't constitution a fundamental change",
"people interesting in advocating",
and "if it's really true that most people"..."that the prospects" (should be "than the prospects")

None of those would have been caught by a spellchecker, I suspect that many of them were caused by a spellchecker, and all of them (to varying degrees, obviously), make the posts they're in harder to read and obscure the points Matt is trying to make. These sorts of mistakes happen exponentially more often on this blog than any other I regularly read, to the point that I actually read this blog differently (when a sentence doesn't make sense to me, my first impulse is that there's a typo, rather than that I just misread it). It is (or should be) a worrying sign when a blog's comment section has fewer typos than the blog itself.

Posted by OhioBoy | November 1, 2007 4:31 PM

More naked ladies!!!

Posted by wsam | November 1, 2007 4:32 PM

I like the typos and homophones (or homonyms, I forget). No need to decrease them.

I like the basketblogging, blogging about indie bands, blogging about apple picking, and other non-politics-related blogging. It breaks the monotony of politics. I would support increasing the frequency of such posts a bit.

I like the longer politics-related posts (although certainly not as long as, say, some of Megan McArdle's). I tend not to click through the short ones anyway, and the I suppose the lefties among us have Atrios to provide short links (and we righties have Instapundit).

I also like the copious use of Flickr pictures at the beginning of posts. It's something that is (for some reason) rare in the blogosphere.

Posted by Al | November 1, 2007 4:34 PM

I'm in the longer posts/fewer linkies camp. In fact, I started thinking about it the other day when you wrote a post saying something like, "I feel like I should have something to say about the Pakistan massacre, but I don't." I can't remember if a link was in that post, but I do remember thinking, "Why should you have anything to say about that news story?" It humanizes you because it lets us (your avid readers) know what's on your mind, and that's fine. But you're not Glenn Reynolds, and we don't come to you to keep up with all the events of the day.

Posted by Ben | November 1, 2007 4:34 PM

more basketball-related blogging, pretty please. no excuse now that the nba season has started

Posted by pedro souza | November 1, 2007 4:36 PM

If it's working, why mess with it? That includes the typos, which at this point are part of the Yglesias brand.

Posted by live | November 1, 2007 4:38 PM

I read you for the sharpness of your analysis and the reliability of the information. Plus, well-placed, well-deserved snark is a wondrous, long-overdue thing on the left. There's only so much free time in a day, and reading your blog feels like a reasonable use of some of it. If you were to start doing longer posts, I'd definitely keep coming by. Lesser posts, no. Contentless links? Boring. By the way so is sports blogging (boring), but I'm sure I'm in the minority on that one.

Posted by a girl | November 1, 2007 4:43 PM

More basketball, of course.

As far as the typos go, it's possible that our gracious host is doing the best he can. I've had a few classmates and coworkers who were dyslexic, and their pattern of mistakes was just the same. I'm not trying to make a diagnosis here, but I'm just sayin' -- it's a possibility. Short of having an actual human editor, there might not be any way to fix it.

Posted by too many steves | November 1, 2007 4:44 PM

i like the mix now. Maybe even more quick links to things that strike you across the internets.

Posted by slash | November 1, 2007 4:46 PM

Like the other Matt, up the chain a ways, I'm an academic. I pretty much agree with him. You're best when you think and when you're careful about sources and clear about how firm you are about an argument. I don't read the sports stuff much even though I was born in DC and you follow most of my teams (not the NZ All Blacks, but hey). The links are useful, but a steady diet of one line plus link and my eyes glaze over.

Posted by jerry | November 1, 2007 4:46 PM

I like typos. They're yummy.

But seriously,

.... I like this blog because sometimes you go to great lengths to explain with pure logic what's wrong with a stupid thing someone says, rather than just communicating: "You dumba**".

Length is good to the extent necessary to do that. Extra length is bad. One-sentence should be rare unless few major blogs already have it up.
But more than two paragraphs should be not a daily occurence.

Posted by glasnost | November 1, 2007 4:47 PM

You're doing fine.

Posted by Freddie | November 1, 2007 4:48 PM

I think you should start a second more personal blog and see how you use it. I think Ezra Klein has a good mix, he has mostly but not all substantive posts on Tapped and then his personal blog is potluck. I'm not saying change the mix of posts here (basketball, DC scene, policy, politics) but if you had a second outlet you might be less inclined to share photos of your weekend hijinks on The Atlantic just because you have no place else to share them publicly.

And more basketball and sports in general.

Posted by joejoejoe | November 1, 2007 4:48 PM

I think you should start a second more personal blog and see how you use it.

Oh, God no. Enough with the proliferation of Yglesais blogs. If he can stick with one blog and one URL for more than a year, it'll be a record, no?

But after reading through the comments, a post on how some of the commenters are wiseasses (not naming names) seems called for.

Posted by Al | November 1, 2007 4:52 PM

I come here for the serious blogs on the issues. I like the policy, wonky posts, that shed light into more arcane areas of debates.

Posted by yep | November 1, 2007 4:52 PM

One reason why you are a popular blogger is becuase you do what you do. no need to change anything. and i don't even care about the spell check.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 1, 2007 4:54 PM

More furry based issues. We're a growing and still overlooked interest group within the progressive movement.

We're furry and we're cute. We won't be oppressed any longer. Deal with it.

Posted by chewie | November 1, 2007 4:54 PM

Keep it fun for yourself. If you stop enjoying it, it will become shit very quickly. As for me, I think it's a good mix as is. A few well-thought out gems, a little snark, a few links and some basketball. Not too shabby.

Posted by DanF | November 1, 2007 4:56 PM

I think that the serious posts are much, much better.

I've noticed a slide toward superficial posts in recent months (post-Atlantic?) and have been disappointed.

Also, the more posts, the less inclined I am to read any one of them.

Posted by Anon | November 1, 2007 4:57 PM

I haven't read all 70+ comments, so this may have been mentioned already, but how about shorter posts during the week and the long, analysis posts on the weekend?

jkb

Posted by Jason Broccardo | November 1, 2007 4:58 PM

I like both! You don't need "more balance." Write more of what you want to write about ;)

Posted by pierluigi | November 1, 2007 5:03 PM

I vote no to quicklinks. This is your blog and and I want to hear what you think not what someone else is thinking without any commentary from you.

Posted by Dave | November 1, 2007 5:11 PM

Hire a proofreader. I know some people think that those of us who point this out are just caviling over typos, but this isn't your MySpace page.

Posted by jim | November 1, 2007 5:12 PM

I essentially like the current mix. I frequently don't click on the quick links, but it is nice to know of what's going on elsewhere on the web.

Posted by Chunche | November 1, 2007 5:14 PM

Both.

Posted by Anderson | November 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Ditto what everyone else said, 'cept for Al. Much less Al please.

Posted by Rihilism | November 1, 2007 5:22 PM

More LOLCats. You've been falling behind in the LOLCat wars.

Posted by Velvet Elvis | November 1, 2007 5:24 PM

Leave the typos, it gives it that fresh feel.

More reporting on Stephen Colbert's presidential campaign.
It's unstoppable! (And So Can You!)

Um, I like the pretty photos, and esoteric music videos and when you link to interesting pieces by other bloggers who you read.

The mix is good!

Posted by Peter K. | November 1, 2007 5:25 PM

Here's my $0.02 for what its worth.

You should focus on presenting developed ideas/analysis on the issues within your core competencies. This is your best stuff (imho) and you should focus your energies on that type of content. No offense, but I'd rather read 1-3 information dense posts each day rather than 10 posts that don't provide much more than "Matt's Brief Take on an Issue Extensively Covered Elsewhere".

As for links, you could do a daily post containing links to interesting offsite content in much the same way Tyler Cowen does (the link + pithy summary). Keep it short and sweet.

Your typos are minor and go with the territory in blogging--continue not to sweat spelling typos too much.

Posted by Rice | November 1, 2007 5:33 PM

I'd like to see you respond a bit more to the comments--there are often significant points in the comments that expand on what you've said, or point out problems, yet you ignore these entirely, which drastically undercuts your credibility and value.

Posted by vorkosigan1 | November 1, 2007 5:35 PM

Matt... do yourself a favor.

Go to surveymonkey.com, buy an account, and post a poll. Your question is phrased in a way that can easily be broken down into quantitative survey items, which are easy to aggregate and summarize.

Pouring through the comments section to try to figure out what we think is... well, mindboggling. Nauseating.

We've got computers now. Use them!

Posted by humanadverb | November 1, 2007 5:40 PM

More local DC stories. National matters have a surplus of commentary. Some focus on the smaller scale may give perspective on some of these national matters. Also, because of various migrations (both intra- and inter-national) and the fact that it is basically at the median climate, D.C is increasingly a microcosm of the US.

Posted by Kenny | November 1, 2007 5:41 PM

Proofread, and ignore that twit McArdle.

Posted by sglover | November 1, 2007 5:41 PM

PLease leve teh typos in, They make reaeding blog this so muhc easiest.

Posted by CKT | November 1, 2007 5:43 PM

I'd vote for altering your mix slightly toward longer, more substantive posts. The short, flippant posts are often fun, but there's definitely a tipping point where a blogger can start to give the impression that he isn't thinking very hard about what he's saying. You've never been on the wrong side of that line, but you occasionally tread dangerously close to it.

Basketblogging, however, is always a good thing.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 1, 2007 5:44 PM

The mix is good. As many people have said, we keep coming back all day so you're doing something right.

Posted by Joe Scordato | November 1, 2007 5:46 PM

Please stop blogging about sports. I hate sports and I find it boring. So you should stop.

Posted by No More Sports | November 1, 2007 5:50 PM

i think you should only invest more time in linking readers to outside content if you think that it's not only something they'd find interesting but something you think a majority of them have not yet and most likely will not find in some manner without your link. keep in mind that most of your readers probably read a lot of the same stuff you do on the internet.

Posted by max | November 1, 2007 5:52 PM

You need to make your blog more like Errol Morris' blog. A psychotically detailed look at which of two 1855 photographs was taken first is just the thing to drive up readership.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 6:01 PM

As for the raging typo controversy...

I really couldn't care less, but (FWIW) I agree with the commenter who thinks you're overusing the spellchecker. Homonym errors are more distracting than typos.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 1, 2007 6:01 PM

I agree with petey, the first comment, and disagree with LaFollette, the last comment since I don't want to read all the comments. More basketball/weird stuff (but not in a silly Glenn Reynolds way) and please, some fix for the spelling mistakes. It's almost as bad as Hugh Hewitt.

Posted by Sam | November 1, 2007 6:17 PM

Who cares about content? I'd be happy if you'd learn how to use spell check.

Posted by mert7878 | November 1, 2007 6:17 PM

5:22 is a very bad comment. Very bad. 4:26 is much better.

Posted by Al | November 1, 2007 6:23 PM

More Luke Ridnour.

Posted by L-Rid | November 1, 2007 6:25 PM

I vote for more posts that reference the zeitgeist of us early-'80s babies; that alt-rock playlist you posted a few months ago was *awesome*.

Posted by Beth | November 1, 2007 6:27 PM

"More Luke Ridnour."

More Awvee Storey.

More Javaris Crittenton.

Less Brad Miller.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 6:29 PM

Let's sort out all of our homowhats, people:

1. Homonyms ("same name") are two or more words with the same spelling and pronunciation, but different meanings.

2. Homophones ("same sound") are two or more words with the same pronunciation, but different spellings and meanings.

3. Homographs ("same writing") are two or more words with the same spelling, but different pronunciation and meaning.

This blog is a never-ending fount of #2 (no double entendre intended). By definition, #1 and #3 can never occur in written media.

Posted by JH | November 1, 2007 6:50 PM

We want a realistic down-to-earth blog that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots.

Posted by Toadmonster | November 1, 2007 6:54 PM

"We want a realistic down-to-earth blog that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots."

I think the blog needs to be more proactive.

Posted by Petey | November 1, 2007 6:57 PM

More f-bombs.

Posted by Bill | November 1, 2007 7:03 PM

More snark and porn.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 1, 2007 7:10 PM

I'd definitely vote for longer posts of less frequency. I'm reading you via RSS feed, and yours is the only one that regularly "turns over" - that is, all the posts given in the feed are new, and there are probably more that didn't make it in. I'm getting the 15 most recent posts in the feed, and so that means that you regularly post more than 15 times between refreshes (4-8 hours apart). I never go look at the site itself, so those excess posts are lost to me and anyone else subscribed to your feed at the same frequency. I'd suggest that you generally time your posts (and adjust the number of articles in the feed) such that someone who checks once a day still sees everything you wrote in that time period. As others have said, there are plenty of sources for the quick-hit link-only post.

Posted by five toed sloth | November 1, 2007 7:13 PM

Let's sort out all of our homowhats, people:

1. Homonyms . . . 2. Homophones . . . 3. Homographs

Well, if there is one thing we can deduce about Matt from his homophonic blogging, it is that he's not homophobic . . .

Posted by rea | November 1, 2007 7:26 PM

Fewer posts with more in-depth analysis or commentary. Don't clog my RSS feeder with snippets of what other blogs are saying, I already have them in my feeder.

Great blog overall, though!

Posted by Filip Tufvesson | November 1, 2007 7:32 PM

There are plenty of aggregators out there, some excellent.

Analysts are a lot rarer. Please, more analysis! If you want to show activity, you can always do UPDATEs a la Greenwald.

Note that I wouldn't mind the occasional "review" article of great postings; that's a genre I don't think anyone is doing. The blogosphere has enough history now that some posts really can be regarded as seminal, though readers might not know of them if they came in late; my nominee would be Orcinus on why he can't vote a split ticket anymore.

Posted by lambert strether | November 1, 2007 7:47 PM

"serious posts on the issues" please

Posted by Lee | November 1, 2007 8:45 PM

More proactive leveraging of synergies

More robust, best of breed, mission critical communications

Increased posting bandwidth will incentivize frequent reading

More bleeding edge analysis providing value add to all readers

More subversion of the dominant paradigm by playing the accordion

Posted by tiparillo | November 1, 2007 8:55 PM

More calling people crazy cuckoo, sarcasm, and TMZ short hand writing.

Posted by Béziers | November 1, 2007 8:58 PM

Less basketball blogging and more posts about music.

Posted by MGJ | November 1, 2007 9:10 PM

You're doing just fine. I like both, for different reasons.

Sanity in any form is very welcome these days.

Posted by John O | November 1, 2007 9:21 PM

I like the mix. As much as I want to read longer posts, I just don't have the time. I work...alot.

I like to read the comments too so I need to prioritize.

Posted by Maggie05 | November 1, 2007 9:24 PM

I think it'd be nice for us (and you) if you occasionally took on a pet issue and made it your-blogging-own. Rather like TPM did with Social Security and Firedoglake did with the gonzo hearings.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | November 1, 2007 11:22 PM

I don't give a shit what you do AS LONG AS YOU ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTIONS ON IRAN!

How's that?

Seriously, though, most of your "long" posts aren't long enough to really make what point you're trying to make. Your short posts are even worse.

Links to useful articles should be in EVERY post if possible. Otherwise we assume you're talking out your ass without any backup.

Blow off the sports posts and movie posts and music posts. Nobody comes here because you're an enthusiast for some sport or some band.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 1, 2007 11:53 PM

Good question (and good to see your interest in reader feedback). As a fellow Dalton grad and occasional novice blogger, I'm struggling with the choice myself.

In your case, the links are often great (that D-squared bit especially) and certainly conducive to reading at work. But what keeps me coming back is your own observations about issues - e.g. your point about prez candidates now needing to be famous before they can run, or your recent efforts to highlight foreign policy differences between Obama and Clinton. So I would urge you to do more thought pieces.

That said, you still probably oughta feed the beast. You know as I do we consumers of blogging depend on continued gratification, and it's always nice to have a daily link or two via Yglesias.

If there is one thing I might caution you against it is devoting lots of space to seemingly arbitrary arguments with fellow bloggers, such as your argument a month ago with Meghan about whether the status of the anti-abortion lobby in the GOP is comparable to that of the teacher's union with the Dems (forgive me if facts are wrong, I only skimmed the post). We know you can argue well, and there are innumerable things in the blogosphere to fuss with. Don't feel the need to deflate every foolish argument for us!

Keeping bringing glory to the Dalton alum!

Posted by Reid Capalino | November 2, 2007 12:05 AM

I think it would make sense to have a link blog--if Atlantic can hold--along the side of pagge, with the quick one liners beneath ... freeing up more space for longer posts.

Also, I like it when people explain their reading routine--how they get information on a daily basis, what web gadgets they use, etc. I know it sounds silly, but I think a lot of people rely on blogs for links or news because--even if they have the time--they haven't developed routines for reading or they're not exactly sure whats digesible on the web each day.

Posted by Al Z | November 2, 2007 12:22 AM

so funy story, i read your blog everyday, and probably at least skim every post. I have never noticed spelling errors, save one a couple days ago. But i've been reading this everyday for a year. I'm not saying there aren't errors, im just saying im an idiot. still, who cares about little spelling errors? this isn't middle school. the content is what matters. and the content is great. i think you have a perfect mix of short and long posts. i too like the photos, and the basketball blogging. I would like some more Laker basketball blogging, but i'm not gonna hold my breath.

oh and more Marty Peretz bashing, i like that as well.

Posted by ben | November 2, 2007 12:22 AM

I think it would make sense to have a link blog--if Atlantic can hold--along the side of pagge, with the quick one liners beneath ... freeing up more space for longer posts.

Also, I like it when people explain their reading routine--how they get information on a daily basis, what web gadgets they use, etc. I know it sounds silly, but I think a lot of people rely on blogs for links or news because--even if they have the time--they haven't developed routines for reading or they're not exactly sure whats digesible on the web each day.

Posted by Al Z | November 2, 2007 12:22 AM

1) You probably don't have the time to do it, but what the USA REALLY , REALLY Needs is a blogger/reporter who tracks the people with power/money, identifies what they're up to in politics (especially stuff that hurts us), and exposes who's whoring for them and who's being hurt by their actions.

2) New info on developments in other power centers (military, economic, technology, threats to the USA of various kinds, etc.) would also be useful.

3) Basically, I think US citizens should be as well informed about who has the power in the world --and what they're doing with it --as the President. Considering the current occupant, that's setting the bar pretty low. But we need something like the President's Intelligence briefings.

4) I suggest that you also consolidate all of the accumulated info you've posted -- or discovered --into a FAQ with citations.

There is so much deceitful bullshit out in the public forum (911 Commission Report,etc) that we really need to have someone define what REALITY truly is -- what the documented facts are -- and constantly challenge the right wing on their falsehoods by pointing to said FAQ.

5) We really need to start holding public commentators --Fox, Rush, Instapundit, etc accountable for what they say. If they are called on a claim, are provided evidence ,and still repeat their false propaganda, then they should be denounced for liars who are intentionally trying to mislead the public.

Maybe a Liar Du Jour posting -- with documentation to support the judgement of course.

Note that I'm not talking about frequent, lightweight snarks about minor areas of disagreement or unimportant matters -- but strong indictments.

Maybe a "Here's how they're lying to you this week -- and why they're do so " feature.

Something that gives people receiving the info a strong urge to hang the target from a lamppost.

Posted by Don Williams | November 2, 2007 12:38 AM

When I read an article of yours at The American Prospect, I noticed right away how much more concise it was than your blog posts. It wouldn't hurt to give a serious edit to posts you think are particularly important.

So I say, don't lengthen the posts, just increase their content.

Posted by matt | November 2, 2007 3:45 AM

Finally, I think the content's basically good but could be accompanied by more sound effects. Or any sound effects. Things like "Boi-oi-oi-oing" and "a-OO-gah! a-OO-gah!" To me that shows there's a real wit behind the commentary.

Posted by Bill | November 2, 2007 7:43 AM

I kind of hate it when bloggers ask this. It's like, 'why are we here? for the content you've got now. why change it?' I mean, I understand you know you've got an audience and want them to be happy, but we are happy (or happy to bitch at you, in the case of some), so...just do what you were doing. Please.

...but a spell checker would be nice. I know it's facetious and middle-school-teacher of me but I do like a nicely spelled post.

(I wonder, now that I've brought it up, what I just misspelled in this comment. You know there's going to be something.)

Posted by Persia | November 2, 2007 10:22 AM

The mix is fine but please, please, get a spell checker. It used to be cute but in a major publication like the Atlantic it's just unnecessary to have so many misspellings

QFT.

Posted by TW Andrews | November 2, 2007 11:15 AM

Less Basketball Blogging, more Baseball Blogging.

Also, nit pick Andrew Sullivan more since he doesn't allow comments.

Posted by MNPundit | November 2, 2007 12:22 PM

Read what you've written, fix your typos, do it before you post.

There's a palpable frustration when, in the course of reading one of your posts, finding its rhythm, pursuing your point, I hit one of the potholes of a word you've left out, or a 'to' where a 'too' was appropriate, or the myriad other small, stupid grammatical mistakes you make (sometimes several times daily).

The rhythm's broken, and my attention's turned to reconstructing what you meant, instead of what you wrote (and didn't proofread).

Contrast that with the experience of reading a Wolcott post. His work is witty and insightful, as yours is, but the care and craftsmanship he puts into it gives me the strong impression that he cares about the craft of writing. More than that, I feel like he knows that I care about it.

In carpentry terms, you're good enough to do a magnificent remodel of a room, and sloppy enough to leave 2-inch gaps where the molding should meet in the corners.

You have lots of talent, you clearly work hard, and I have a ton of respect for your skills. I ask that you pay more attention to the craft.

That was a lot of words about one thing I wish you'd work on. Here's just a few regarding how I feel about your work in the larger sense.

Keep up the great work.

Posted by chiggins | November 2, 2007 12:41 PM

I like the subjects you cover and a 30/70% mix quick links/posts on issues would work.
Keep up the good work.

Posted by Sam | November 2, 2007 2:17 PM

i'm here daily for the opinion. there's lots of other places to get straight news.....

Posted by dj spellchecka | November 2, 2007 2:51 PM

Look, Yglesias, if I knew what I wanted to read, I'd write it myself.

Posted by Chuck | November 2, 2007 3:18 PM

Grow to appreciate hockey. More music posts.

Posted by witless chum | November 2, 2007 3:28 PM

Donny was a good bowler, and a good man. He was one of us. He was a man who loved the outdoors... and bowling, and as a surfer he explored the beaches of Southern California, from La Jolla to Leo Carrillo and... up to... Pismo. He died, like so many young men of his generation, he died before his time. In your wisdom, Lord, you took him, as you took so many bright flowering young men at Khe Sanh, at Langdok, at Hill 364. These young men gave their lives. And so would Donny. Donny, who loved bowling. And so, Theodore Donald Karabotsos, in accordance with what we think your dying wishes might well have been, we commit your final mortal remains to the bosom of the Pacific Ocean, which you loved so well. Good night, sweet prince.

Posted by Eddy Go | November 2, 2007 3:47 PM

Well, there are a lot of comments about spelling and grammar, but I think it's a mistake to spend valuable time trying to correct it all by yourself. Still, hiring an editor is too expensive, so ...

... you should turn it into a game. Have people sign up to be "correctors" who log their fixes on a background page, to avoid distraction. (And kick out the ones who abuse the privilege by slipping in extra comments.) Then you can have a running total on who's winning: first catch of the day, most this week, most ever, etc. You can even have a dunce corner for those who "fix" something that was already correct. Bonus points for anyone who finds a mistake in a correction.

It's like an automatic spell/grammar checker, but with thousands of people instead of a computer. And it's free!

Posted by Ted C. | November 3, 2007 7:08 PM

I think you should stop wasting your time writing about politics and cultivate an interest in some other field, like the history of human sexuality or the relation between commerce and the flow of ideas, then find some way to triangulate back from that new knowledge to see how it reflects on the reality we are living now.

Posted by eatbees | November 3, 2007 7:44 PM