1.I'm interested in garden blogs. I guess that means blogs with gardening as a main theme. We all wander off the path occasionally.
2.How many posts does it take to see if the blogger is into gardens? Some brand new blogs have a freshness and new slant on things.
3.A 6 month cut off for lack of activity seems fair to me.
4.If George Foremen can do it, I guess Blotanical can too. Jut add a number to their blog name where it appears using the order they joined the group

Some good questions Stuart - and something I've thought for a while needs looking at. Here are some immediate thoughts, and I'll get back to you if anything important occurs. The numbers are as yours.

1. I'd change your emphasis to GARDENING blogs. I was looking at a newish blog the other day, and scroll down as I might, couldn't actually find a post on gardening. I'd say gardens and gardening (obviously interpreted in a very wide sense) has to be a main focus of the blog to be included - which doesn't of course preclude posts on other topics as well. But in terms of your original question - I'd be happy for "blog" to be interpreted fairly widely.
2. Doesn't worry me too much. If they're a flash in the pan they won't show up anyway, and this can be handled by ...
3. Here I'd say yes, and 6 months would allow for most personal problems plus the "summer only" bloggers. Though if there were a "safety net" for genuine bloggers who had to have a longer break it would be best. Could there be a "Put me into hibernation" button, which temporarily removed someone but, when they were ready to come back, left them with the same points, still faved etc? (I can hear you groaning at the thought of the programming - sorry)
4. No - it's horribly confusing.

It will be interesting to see how other people feel. I suspect you'll get some strong opinions ...

Hi, Stuart,

The one thing I've noticed recently is there are some blogs that seem more commercial in nature (from a local newspaper, for example), when what I expect from a blog is writing from us "ordinary" folk (and I use quotation marks, because none of us is ordinary!). That said, if I don't want to pick or comment on a "commercial" blog, then I don't! Simple.

In the winter, I know my posts range from plants to poetry to other subjects not related to my garden, but that's just the nature of blogging, I think, and I enjoy reading other people's thoughts on various subjects not specifically related to gardening or blogging about gardens and plants. I've really been enjoying reading, for example, entries on Future House Farm labeled GIST (for Grace in Small Things). Not garden-related mostly, but a pleasure to read nevertheless.

Regarding a minimum number of entries before being considered for membership, I like the open approach you've had up until now; it can be very encouraging to a new blogger to have his or her posts picked and commented on. I know it's made a big difference to me and my enthusiasm level toward blogging.

And speaking from experience, I wasn't posting at all for a few months late last year, and I would have been sad if Blotanical had booted me off. On the other hand, maybe a minimum-posts policy (like five a month) would have been the carrot (or stick!) I needed to keep me actively contributing. Hmmm. Now that I think about it, that doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

I don't have any thoughts to contribute regarding blogs with similar names. I know it happens and it's unfair to the person who created the name to begin with, but I don't think the duplicators probably realize they're copying someone else. Maybe in your next life you can become a blog cataloger! Hee hee!

Thanks as always for your dedication to Blotanical. I think I can speak for many when I say we are truly grateful for the time and attention you give to us!

Jared

1. I feel that Blotanical is a social networking site. It is a place where we connect with one another, through our blogs and comments and the messages. I think Blotanical is more than just a listing service. The site you had listed has no way to connect with others.

2. I don't think there should be a minimum age. I think that if kids are gardening and want to blog about it, more power to them. A gardening blog would be a great home schooling project and the kids would be thrilled to get feedback. I know there are laws on the web about young kids and privacy. I don't know them. I don't know if Blotanical is built to conform to them.
3. As to the number of posts. That is an issue. In the far north (or south :>) the growing season is short and if their blog is not being written during the winter, I think that is perfectly fine. I know a number of my favorite blogs that have slowed down a lot over the winter. Some people have moved and not gotten their next garden up. I would say wait 8 months to be sure.

Hi Stuart -- a few thoughts on your queries:

(1) Actually, I don't really have an opinion on that one, one way or the other. After a cursory peek at the Google 'blog' you linked to, I find it perfectly acceptable and with a wealth of information by the look of it. Based on that, I have no problem that it's not a "traditional blog". (2) As for a prerequisite # of posts before acceptance, I think this one could be stickier. Take, for example, someone who has always had a keen interest in gardening, but has never had a blog -- they discover Blotanical and are excited to join in. I wouldn't think it fair to deny them acceptance based on the fact that they're new to blogging. The same goes for a minimum age -- I know at least one 16 year old who has their own garden and writes well. I guess you'd have to take age on a blog by blog basis, perhaps? (3) I'd think after 6 months without a post, perhaps an e-mail asking the member's intent might be in order? There could be extenuating circumstances that would keep someone away from blogging for that period of time; perhaps upon acceptance, members could agree to notify you if a blog becomes permanently, or temporarily, inactive. After 6 months without a post, most would have stopped reading the blog anyway. (4) This is a no-brainer for me. I think all blogs should have different identities, even if it means putting a number "2" after the title.

Just my two cents' worth. :) I'll be interested to read others' comments.

I don't mind what form a site takes as long as it is not commercial. That said, there are some commercial or quasi-commercial blogs which fit in here quite well . . . but I wouldn't like there to be too many like that.

There are also some blogs which are well worth reading which don't allow comments. That's a bit frustrating but . . . if they are a good read, I read them anyway - and wouldn't feel happy if they weren't allowed to be part of Blotanical. Blotanical may have elements of a social networking site but it isn't just that.

I don't think there should be any requirement on the number of posts. People come and go. It would be awful if people felt pressured into blogging. It would spoil it for them and might result in unnecessarily sub-standard material being published. An inactive blog is unlikely to appear very prominently but leaving it in the listings allows someone to begin again without self-consciousness.

I've been meaning to ask for a while if we could have small notice boards on our plots. If we did, we could put up a notice to say when the next post would be . . . or to say we're having a break but will be back . . . or 'I'm back folks!' That kind of thing. (And other notices that would also be of general interest.)

Esther

Food for thought Stuart!

Your example blog worries me - it looks OK-ish at the moment, but it looks similar to those 'blogs' which re-publish others' content so they can gain from advertising revenue. Do the 'contributors' know their content's on there? Are they happy with that? I know there's no advertising on there at the moment, but who knows in the future? If there was a way to interact with the site, I'd feel more comfortable with it.

I don't think there should be a minimum blog age. Being involved with Blotanical could be just the thing to encourage a newbie to keep going. I can still remember how lonely it was out there at the beginning. It's when someone stops that I think needs to be considered more - though illness etc. should be taken into account. Also, what about the people who register with Blotanical, but never log in again? They're not taking part in our community at all, should they stay?

As for gardening only blogs, how should this be defined? Most of us veer off that path from time to time. I'm one of the worst offenders and am planning to stay that way!

As for same identity - I've only seen that happen when 2 different blogging platforms are involved and I don't think having the same name was deliberate. Perhaps the blogname + their Blotanical name could be used to identify them. I for one wouldn't be able to remember which blog was given number one, but I am more likely to remember the person associated with the blog.

That's it for now - I'll check in again to see what others have to say

I'm concerned about definitions.

I have two blogs registered on Blotanical. One (Loose and Leafy) wanders around a bit - for the last few months, it has been about wild fungi, bushes and trees of the hedgerows and, although this clearly isn't 'gardening' I feel perfectly at home here and haven't caught any sense that others think it doesn't belong.

My other blog, 'Pictures Just Pictures' is a photograph a day. This isn't a gardening blog either - and the content is even harder to define - but I still think it fits.

I don't get large numbers of picks but I get enough to make me think I am right about this. If people thought these blogs were out of place, they wouldn't give them any picks at all.

So . . . although I wouldn't want Blotanical to be heavy handed about Gardening I can't think of a good, accurate yet sufficiently flexible definition to suggest.

Oh, and there's Robert's Roost . . . that fits too, I reckon - but it's about farming, not gardening. There was even a section in the Blotanicals where it clearly belonged.

If someone registered a blog here that others thought misplaced, I'm sure they'd let you know (!). But making the decision the initial decision . . . I can see that's hard!

Lucy

Hi folks,
Aren't you misinterpreting Stuart's reference to age? I presumed he meant the "age" of the blog - not the blogger. ie should the blog have been going for at least 6 months or something before being included.

Hi Stuart, these are good issues and it is probably a good time to address them. My thoughts:
1. garden blogs only yes, but garden in the broadest sense of the term. The one you name seems fine to me.
2. Newbies welcome. You do mean age of the blog, not age of the person, right?
3. Six months seems reasonable, but exceptions could be made if they write to you explaining a long absence.
4. This one is really a bugger to me. One name only, it would help all parties involved to have a different name from the others. No confusion then as to who is whom. If the day comes when we are all self hosted, purchase your domain name now too, even if you aren't going to use it now, to protect your name from someone else taking it.
Frances, aka I have no opinion. :-)

@Sue - that's correct. Age was in relation to the blog not the blogger. Sorry for any confusion.

All interesting questions and I have a few opinions-of course-I'm a blogger:)

1. I do not think there should be a minimum age or number of posts before a blogger is allowed.

2. There should be a cut off of inactivity before Blotanical puts a blog in hibernation or inactive mode. More for your housekeeping and to keep clutter in perspective. That being said-what constitutes inactivity? Let's say someone has a blog and does not post but still logs in to Blotanical on a regular basis? This would be a question for you to decide what inactivity is, but I think one year is more reasonable before dropping bloggers.

3. I don't think commercial blogs should be listed the same on here as ordinary blogs, especially if they are published through an FTP. As per your definition, blogs are online journals for sharing personal experiences. A hard thing to differentiate would be what would be considered personal experiences? Even professionals have personal experiences and everyone has their own technique for writing. An alternative would be to have a 'commercial' or 'professional' only registry for garden blogs, and another site for 'ordinary' blogs. At some point you may have to categorize blogs anyhow as more and more are added. But you may want to look at the purpose of a blog-selling or sharing or getting out the word of a botanical garden, etc. All are interesting but the blog that belongs to California's Premier Botanical Garden (for example) will not have much in common with most of us. Maybe even a category for Botanical garden blogs? Or garden consulting blogs? Or professional garden writers? Categories might make it simpler. I guess it all depends on where you want to take your website.

4. Names, now that is another sticky one. Having one of the three listed blogs with the name In the Garden is totally frustrating. One of my blogging friends here in Tennessee faved me way back when-or so he thought. He actually faved the wrong In the Garden and has fixed it but it was and had always been a problem as you have pointed out to me. That is why I added the TN to the end of my blog name. It did not change the shape or form of my blog and I am glad I finally did it, but it has probably still been confusing for visitors to my blog and the other two In the Garden blogs. Bottomline, I think there should be a way to differentiate the name of the blogs-but I would never change the name of my blog-just somehow to differentiate it as I did. Most ordinary folks start their blogs not knowing anything about blogging, as I did. My blog was going six months before I joined Blotanical, and then it took me another six months to get going. I had no idea there was such a thing as garden blogs! How could I even know someone else had the same name as my blog. It is not a matter of who came first, because each blog is as individual as the blogger. In fact, I may just change the TN to tina since my name is probably more identified with my blog than the Tennessee. Maybe attach the blogger's names to their blogs? Hope this helps you a bit.

I was relieved to see VP's answer. I'm not for the blogs that just republish information.

Hi Stuart.

1) I enjoy Gardening blogs, but also enjoy them, in the broader sense of the word, so this includes wildlife, nature, etc. I think it is fine when other topics are included - as we are all multi-faceted people. As long as some focus is on plants / gardening / nature

I prefer blogs with a RSS feed.

2) I dont think that folk should be excluded from blotanical because they have only just started a gardening blog - I think it can be the blotanical support that encourages a new garden blogger to go from strength to strength.

3)I found this an interesting question - as I was going to ask you if I can "un favorite" a favorite if they have not posted in so long, or - possibly more irritating they have not logged in, or responded to messages for months and months and months

I think, as Ester suggested it would be cool to have some kind of message board in "My Plot" so that if we are sick, overwhelmed, cruising around the world etc, we could leave a message there.

How on earth would you decide on the X number of posts - just thinking about it gives me a sense of unwelcome pressure and I am a regular poster.

4) Blog names - My plea is for a separate identity -
If there was another "Artist's Garden" I would be sad (and I would spam it).

1. I'd say that garden blogs can vary greatly. I would be sad if I weren't allowed to be on blotanical because of my lack of gardening specific posts. I enjoy gardening, but can't garden several months out of the year. Should I be made to research and post other people's pictures during the "off" months? That would disqualify me from having a blog here. I do think that blogs should produce garden posts during seasons that can be gardened in, but it would be difficult to keep track of such a thing I'm sure.

I agree that these sites should not be commercial in nature and I also feel strongly that we should be able to interact with the blog writer. Maybe those non-traditional types of places could be listed as a link somewhere if they have gardening information but are not actually a blog?

2. I don't know that minimums are really needed. It is encouraging to get responses when you're new to the blog world.

3. I don't know about x number of posts, but I certainly think that 6 months would allow most people plenty of time to come up with a post.

4. Multiple blogs with the same name are confusing. I like blog name with blotanist name as a way to keep track. I don't think these duplicate names are taken on purpose, but it would be hard for everyone to come up with a distintly different name if that was a requirement.

You always have such interesting and provoking questions, Stuart. Let's see if I can contribute something of use:
1. I don't know what Google Sites are, but that just looked like one of those sites that helps itself to the work of other sites (granted, they're mostly all newspapers, but that still is a sore point if a writer is only being paid once for his/her article and yet it's springing up like mushrooms elsewhere. I love reading blogs, but tend to skitter away from sites that look like the Urban Farmer one.
2. Maybe a small minimum number of posts, like half a dozen? I've seen many blogs where someone has started, posted once or twice, then just faded away. (Not necessarily garden blogs. I have a variety of interests, as we all do).
3. Sometimes life does interfere with even a passion like gardening or blogging. As you know, I went AWOL from here for the past few months, and didn't post too awfully often on my own blog, or comment on others. So I would say maybe just check in with someone if they've been missing in action for a while. And some ARE seasonal bloggers as others have noted. Or like another commentor suggests, perhaps we could have a 'bulletin board' spot on our plots if we're going to be away. If someone like you or Carol or Frances didn't post for more than a few days, I'd worry unless you'd said you were on vacation or having a Monty Python watchathon, or other great reason for disappearing.
4. A blog can't register on Blogger with the same name as someone else, but can do so on another host, I'm sure. I can't think of two blogs with the same name although there are a few that are quite similar.

You know something that has been bothering me a bit? I'd like to see some of the newer, less well-known blogs get into the top 15 picks. There are some really fine new (ish) blogs that rarely seem to get more than a few picks, or in some cases none at all. Now that I'm back in action, I'm actually reading more of the new ones and posting comments to help cheer them on. I know the system is not perfect (and you've had some flak over the past year), but I wonder whether there is something we can do to help bring some of the other blogs to the forefront.

Great questions! And lots of great ideas already submitted. Here's my perspective as a newbie (1-1-09):
1. I am generally most interested in blogs that are heavy on gardening info/experiences, but don't mind a broader definition of gardening that includes plants in general (including forests and farms) and even a few critters now and then. I don't even mind a little "wandering" off the topic, as long as that doesn't become the majority of postings. After all, this is a community and we do like to hear about each other's lives, even outside the garden now and then.
2. I personally was very grateful to have been accepted with only one or two posts under my belt. It was a HUGE encouragement to me to keep going. People have been wonderfully friendly and welcoming. I think it would be much tougher to get started all on one's own. I do think it should be very clearly stated in a blog's header or "about" section that it is primarily a gardening blog.
3. I think 6 months should be a good length of time for most people. I do like the idea someone suggested of sending an email query to assess a blogger's intentions. Perhaps they could be given the option of responding and being retained, or being dropped if they don't respond or post by a certain deadline. Maybe they could even be sent one or two reminders. (We're dreaming up all kinds of work for you, aren't we, Stuart?)
4. I think it makes more sense for no two blogs to have the same name. I can't imagine why anyone would want to have the same name as someone else. I myself searched all over before settling on the name for my blog. (Someone already had my first choice...)
Thanks again for all your hard work and creative thinking, Stuart.

Hmmm, I seem to be personally invested in at least two of these suggestions.
1. While I enjoy whole-hog gardening blogs, I've been know to spend quite a bit of time on those that talk gardening, sewing, photos, family, etc. As long as gardening is a consistant theme, I don't see the harm.
2. Ahem. I believe I joined Blotanical three days and five posts into my blogging adventures. I agree setting age limits and quotas could discourage others from joining. This is a great resource that helps connect people around the globe. Shutting the door on newcomers would be like saying we can't hire you because you lack experience.
3. This is a tough one. I'm a little disappointed when I visit a blog that has gone barren, but I move on. I kind of like that button idea, though.
4. Oops, again this would be me. Attaching numbers may get confusing. It seems to work by just including state abbreviation. In my case, I'm gardeness around here, although my blog title is Garden Muse.

Regardless of how it's configured, it will all work out splendidly.

Hmmmm. Let's see.
1. I'm flexible on this one. If you do accept non-blogs, you'd have to set up some kind of criteria of what would be accepted and what wouldn't.
2.I think I understand your question pretty well. The bloggers that don't have many posts or new bloggers haven't really proved their staying power.You don't want to let someone join if they don't participate. Still, I'd rather accept new bloggers as long as there is a cut-off time if they don't participate in any way.
3. Most organizations require some kind of participation and if members don't, after a certain length of time, they are dropped. Why should Blotanical be different? I would give bloggers 6 to 8 months to participate in some way. This would include picks, messages, forums and any other use of the website, not just blogging. If they do get dropped, they should be able to rejoin at a later time without penalty.
4. I don't have a problem with duplicate blog names. If I have difficulty finding a blog, I will look under the person's name instead.
By the way, I love the idea of a notice board at each plot. Something for future thought.

Stuart,

I do appreciate that you are thinking of the future and this is a good time to think of these issues.

1. Garden blogs : Gardening yes but I am happy with the mix at present. As far as the ‘blog’ part is concerned, I think your question was is this site a blog – I assume that the programing side would dictate if you could except it.

2. One day (hopefully) I would like to blog and I would like to be able to register it will Blotanical on day one!

3. A difficult one - you do need to clean up the site from time-to-time. I am happy with what ever is convenient for you, but would like anyone with unusual circumstances to be able to emailing you for an exception.

4. Blog names need to be different or it gets confusing.

Blotanical without you would be a very different place, unimaginable! Blotanical is yours and I think most people want it to stay that way, it is what makes it such a friendly and comfortable place to be. I appreciate you asking our opinion but what is best for you is fine. I don’t believe you would do anything the majority of us would be unhappy with and I know we would soon tell you! Do make the site easier for you to manage, especially as it is growing all the time.

One of your many, many fans. Best wishes Sylvia (England)

Hi all,
Can I come back to the "topic" problem. In my original reply I certainly wasn't suggesting you get slung out because of posts on other topics - just that you shouldn't be there if you almost never write about your garden (in the widest sense - eg wildlife included) or anything "botanical" whether that be farming, fungi in the woods or whatever. We all write about a variety of things - but if none of those things relate to the site, what's the blog doing here? Clearly VP's blog is prdominantly a gardening blog - and a very good one :) But as I said before, there are a small number of blogs where you often can't find any garden/botanical posts at all.

1. I think it should be a blog, with the ability to leave comments. It seems to me that the great value of blotanical (and it is a great value, Stuart--you should be knighted or something for starting this) is its wonderful social aspect. This weekly farmer thing doesn't really seem to have that capability. They could add it, of course, and that changes things...

2. I don't think you should keep out a blog that is young--either in post or age. I think, in fact, blotanical helps young blogs get started. Many of us were tentatively dipping our toes in the water when we found this directory. "Will I like blogging? Will anybody really read anything I have to say?" My fellow bloggers on Blotanical provide a lot of encouragement.

3. Things can get awfully bulky if you are carrying blogs that no longer post. Perhaps the blogger can contact you if there is going to be an unavoidable absence--otherwise, pitch them after six months of no posting? With the possibility of allowing them to come back if they have a resurgence in interest?
4. I think the bogs should have different names. Otherwise it's just too confusing.

I'm coming back for a second bite because some of the comments have made me think some more - especially ones which mention the word 'community'.

This 'community' aspect has taken me by surprise.

When I joined Blotanical, I joined because it was a directory. Like some others here, when I started blogging I didn't even know anyone else would be interested in blogging about their gardens let alone read about the gardening experiences of others. How wrong I was!

But if I had been told I was joining a 'Community' - well, I simply wouldn't have joined - in fact, I am still put off at times by group expectations as traditions evolve among members.

For some (like me) the word 'Community' has political and religious associations. It is connected to the word 'commitment' - and I jolly well wouldn't want to be committed to people I don't know, or their blogs (which might contain all sorts of odd things!) without knowing them first. In practice it has turned out fine - a really good experience - and there are people I have met through 'Blotanical' that I would dearly love to meet 'in real life' if ever I have the chance.

But - that is what I know NOW . . . not at the beginning.

So, when I first began to think more about your question, I thought a clearer description of what Blotanical is would help potential members be better at self-selecting. Then I realised it would also have the potential to put the wrong people off, ones who don't yet know the 'lingo'. (I still have difficulties with the internet use of words like 'icon' and 'avatar' - indeed, I avoid using them when I can.)

You will probably think this laughable but, when I joined, I thought I was doing a very brave thing . . . but how less rich my life would have been if I hadn't!

Esther

@Stuart - I was one of the ones who confused blogger age with blog age. :) No, I don't think that should be a consideration -- some people may create a blog so they can join and contribute to this community and I don't think the # of posts should interfere with that.

@Jodi - I agree completely about getting some of the newer blogs more attention. I, too, read from the new blogs section and try to leave comments on those that interest me. Stuart, perhaps the "new blogs" shouldn't stay in the "new blogs section" for so long? Maybe shorten their time to a month before just listing their posts in the "current posts section"? I can see where being in the New Blogs section could be an advantage, or a disadvantage. :) Again, just my 2 cents.

Hi Stuart, here's my two cents:
1. Garden blogs only, as long as the definition of garden is broad. Many, if not most of the garden blogs I read cover a range of subjects with gardening being the main theme. I would hate to see farm blogs excluded.
2. No minimum age or number of posts. With the explosion of blogs in general, I suspect there are plenty of new garden bloggers who discontinue blogging after a short time. I think the housekeeping this might entail as the # of inactive blogs increase can be addressed by #3.
3. Six months makes sense, especially with the button idea that would allow a longer period if needed due to personal issues such as illness.
4. This is the one I have the strongest opinion on. I feel duplicate blog names should not be allowed. It's too confusing. Especially as the number of garden blogs increase, there could even be bloggers who intentionally duplicate a blog name in an effort to ride on the coattails of an older, more well-known blog.

Thanks for considering our views!

1. I find I don't usually read the more commercial blogs. I like to connect with a person, not a business. But if they want to join, I don't see why they shouldn't. We don't have to read them.
2. Like many others here, I jumped straight into Blotanical. In fact, I think I can remember emailing you in a panic, Stuart, because I thought I'd be a member before I'd managed to set up my blog! Blotanical gave me the encouragement to start blogging properly. (Well, when I say properly...)
3. I know that I and many others on Blotanical have had times when we haven't been able to post for various reasons. It would be an extra stress for those of us who are having problems if we had to worry about keeping up the blog. I like Esther's idea of being able to leave a little note to let people know when we're having a break.
4. Make your name as memorable as possible is my advice. People won't go back to read your blog if they can't remember who you are.

1. This is a difficult point, as it is sometimes hard to determine when a blog has crossed a line from being a "gardening" blog, to being a life or home blog. However, the blog should truly be a blog, original posts by the author/s of that blog.
2. There should be no minimum age for a blog. A new blogger with a truly terrific blog might get discouraged and quit before an arbitrary number of posts is reached.
3. I don't like the idea of forcing bloggers to post just to stay in. People should post when the inspiration strikes and always make each post worthwhile.
3. It is to be hoped that gardeners who start a blog are aware of garden blogs already and also are aware of Blotanical and would try to choose a name that is not already in use. A section for those considering starting a blog might be helpful, including advice to avoid repeating blog names.
That's just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.

Hi Stuart,
Thanks for the updates you have made and the time you spend keeping things going smoothly. It seems most people are agreeing with each other about your questions. I agree with them, as well.

One thing that bothers me is when I click on a blog in the most visited blogs list, especially if it is in the top 30 or so, and there hasn't been a new post for over a week. If the list is the most visited in the last 24 hours, I feel they should have written a post at least in the last couple of weeks. I don't know how easy that would be to manage.

I have noticed at times that it will say I have a certain number of picks, and then the names of those who picked the post are either more or less than the number listed. Once, I had about 5 more names listed than the number it said I had. I haven't paid attention lately, though.

Thanks,
Sue
(I got something that said I had to have more letters in my name, so I now appear as Susan.)

Stuart-- I'm glad I didn't have to wait six months before joining. It has been very encouraging to be one of the gang.

As for the duplicate names, the search/map feature can help. If you are most interested in blogger A who lives in Florida and blogger B (with an identical name) is in New Mexico, the map feature can differentiate the two. Then just fave the Florida blogger.
--Just my two cents. Thanks as always, Stuart.

Hey Stuart,

I thank you, first off, for asking us to give our 2cents worth- and for continually improving blotanical! Here are my thoughts.

1. I can honestly say the reason I joined in the first place was because I knew that it was a place that other gardeners were- So yes, gardening blogs. If it doesn't have an RSS though- I just don't know how you'd do that! You already do a lot. Everyone wonders from time to time- most of the time in winter- posting about non-gardening things, and I don't include birding in that as the little guys are just as big a part of my garden as the plants. I love reading those posts as well- the non-gardening ones. You get to know that blogger a little better :) I will agree also that a more commercially oriented gardening blog is not appealing it me and most of the time I don't pick those posts. I want to know and read about the successes and failures of real people, just like me. There is nothing like sharing a gardener's joy when their first flower blooms- you're right there to encourage them and share their joy...understanding just how they feel!

2. Minimum posts or age of blog- simply, no. I don't know about anyone else, but it has inspired my writing just being a part of blotanical...turning a new blog away could possibly squelch that :)

3. Ongoing registrations- I really liked another commenters suggestion about a feature to turn us off for a bit or suspend it somehow, to allow for illness, moving!(possibly me soon :(, vacations, or the like. It would be assuring to know that we had that option, if we need it, and not have to think about starting over with favorites, etc. Even having a little notice on your plot so others know that you'll be back! I'd hate to be booted off here- it would crush me :) This is the first 'group' I have ever stayed with- blotanical has things others do not, it is unique!

4. Blog names- No, too confusing to have the same name.

Thanks again Stuart for asking us!

Tessa (dirtdigger)

One more thing Stuart, about the frequency of posts on a blog. I shoot for 2 or 3 a week, but if I'm really busy- usually outside :) I may not be able to post. When I'm not posting on my blog, I have a little more time to read and pick other blogs. I do that when I post as well, but when I'm not posting I have more time to pick, and I take advantage of that- which means, I'm still active. That has been my pattern, anyway :)

I don't know how you do it- blog, blotanical, gardening, and your job and life...amazing!

Tessa

Hi Stuart - I love blotanical, thanks for working to improve it. My ideas on your questions:
1. I don't have a problem with including less personal 'blogs' like the one you listed. The picks and faveing will lean toward the personal ones anyway.
2. I wouldn't want a mandatory minimum age or # of posts, but maybe in the registration process you could suggest that new blogs try to have a minimum number of posts before registering, just so readers can get a better feel for the new blog and whether they want to return to it. My time at blotanical is more limited than some, and unfortunately many new-to-me blogs only get one chance to hook me and keep me coming back. A blog with just one post might not get a second look. So a suggested # of posts would be for the new blog's benefit.
3. Decluttering is good! Maybe an 8 month deadline for those of us with REALLY LONG winters would be workable, and an option to email you and request an exemption from the rule if needed.
4. No blogs with the same name is a good rule. I like the idea of adding the blogger's name at the end of the new blog title instead of a number. The first blog shouldn't have to change its name.
Thanks again - VW

1. To me gardening and nature just go together. I think there should be a broad line drawn here. I also love hearing about the personal aspects of the bloggers life. I think if a blog contains material that is not garden or outdoor related for 6-8 months, the same time that is allowed for the stagnant blog, then maybe they should be deleted also.

2. It seems like when I first joined Blogger I had to post a certain number of posts before they would be published. Maybe there could be a three post rule or something like that, for you to determine if it is an acceptable blog.

4.I prefer that everyone have a different blog name.

Robin

1. No idea, though I'd hope that any blogs that were doing anything really objectionable wouldn't get enough favorites and picks to be able to get much attention anyway.

2. Yes, there should be a minimum number of posts. Not a big number, but enough to establish that the person is at least *slightly* serious about it. Maybe like 3-5. The reason I think this is, as Blotanical gets larger and more noticeable, the more likely it is to attract spam-type blogs, with just one post that's a link to a commercial site and nothing else. There has to be some kind of minimum standard for what qualifies.

3. Yes, there should be some minimum expectations to stay listed. If you can't post in six months, regardless of your reasons for not being able to do so, there's really no reason to expect that you're going to start dropping pearls of wit and wisdom in month seven. If things improve and you're able to post again, great, you can be reinstated immediately, but there's no real use in holding onto links for blogs that have stopped posting.

#2 and #3 could be used in conjunction, where the number of posts the blog has could determine how long you're permitted to go quiet before your blog is off the list. Someone with 3 posts could be kicked off after two silent months; someone with 300 posts could be kicked off only after a silent year. Something like that. Though that sounds like it'd be a headache to keep up with.

4. Yes, I think repeat-titles should be identified by the blogger's name or location, e.g. "The Generic Garden Blog (Kara)" or "The Generic Garden Blog (Denver, CO)."

Hi Stuart -

Thanks for soliciting this feedback from users in your never-ending quest to make this site even better (and "funner").

1. I'm not a fan of those catch-all seemingly robot-powered sites, but I just don't go back to them. If someone's getting something useful out of it, then fine. I like the blogs that go off-topic at times, makes me know more about and have a deeper connection with the blogger behind the site that way. Mostly gardening, in the seasons when it's possible, seems like a good goal. But digressions allowed, please! :)

2. I can see how you might want to see what a blogger's got going before you let them sign up, but I also appreciated being let into the group when I was pretty much newly-minted. I think I'd still have about 5 hits a day if it weren't for Blotanical! So, I'm personally grateful for the leniency here.

3. I think frequency of posting is a dicey one - if someone is really off for 6+ mo., then maybe an email exchange to ask if/when they plan to return? Or a request to new members that they contact you if they find they are not going to continue for a lengthy period? I don't know, there are some I read even though they are not super frequent. Just makes me appreciate the posts when they do arrive!

4. Tricky one - I do admit that I picked an "already taken" blog name but it's a totally unrelated topic, so I'm trying not to feel bad about it. Maybe the first person to submit to Blotanical has dibs rights on that name and the others have the choice to change the name or not join? Kind of like how you apply for an email address and if it's already taken at Google or whatever, you can either put in another one or see if you can get it at Yahoo or Hotmail. Not sure how you would solve the issue for those already here, sorry.

Good luck sifting through the responses. Geez, did you think we would have a few opinions?!

- Karen/Greenwalks

1. I don't think the blog example you mention should be listed. It's just a kind of portal linking to already published material. You can use Google for that not Blotanical.
Blogs should be personal and interactive and this one isn't. Apart from this kind of "commercial/impersonal" site I'm happy with any blog that has gardening/wildlife/nature as part of its content.
I think too many inappropriate sites will inflate the picks list and put us off trawling through them.
2. Min age of blog or number of posts not important.
3. 6 months without a post and blog should be delisted unless you've already been contacted with a reasonable explanation.
4. Blog names should be unique to avoid confusion.

I enjoy the blogs that combine gardening with some personal info. To me I like seeing other "real" people that enjoy what I enjoy. If there hobbies also include cooking, crafting or other creative outlets I always enjoy learning. Anyone that comes across as being here to sell something doesn't hold my attention, so I just don't read it.
I started here also with just a few postings on my blog. I would hate for there to be a minimum to discourage new bloggers. I have enjoyed learning and getting encouragement from more experienced bloggers. Some feel almost like "blog mentors" to me.
Unique blog names would be nice, but someone may have started their blog without knowing one with the same existed. Maybe just add the state or country they are from to the end.
Thanks.

Gardening BLOGS only? - I am flexible on this one, I don't have a strong opinion either way and think that you should decide Stuart based on what you want Blotanical to be.

Others have commented on whether Blotanical should include GARDENING blogs only. I do feel strongly about this one, and think that many of the blogs I read and love are primarily gardening blogs, but are also blogs about life, cookery, children, nature etc. I love this and feel that for all of us it represents the fact that our love for gardening is interwoven into our lives. For me it would be a shame to include ONLY "purist" garden blogs who post about nothing else, although this is fine as well. I also love the fact that certain bloggers find a way to interpret "garden" artistically and in their own way, like Esther for example. Just my humble opinion! :)

I think new blogs are fine, but blogs that have been obviously "abandoned" for a significant length of time, perhaps 6 mos might need to be reviewed. Perhaps the blog owner could be contacted at that point and asked if they intend to continue blogging or not, and if not then the blog could be removed. I don't know though if this would cause a lot of work for you Stuart? I don't think personally that there needs to be a minimum age, or amount of posts. I think Blotanical has given many of us a great start, and motivated us to continue and it would be a shame if this didn't happen for others.

Blog Names? - I think that there needs to be a way to separately identify blogs with the same name, although I have no idea how this could be done. Sorry.

Hi Stuart -- thanks for asking for our input! Here is my 2 cents worth...
1. I think that as long as the overall focus of a blog's content is on gardening, farming, or otherwise actively participating in growing things,it should be included. Digressions are great. I have wondered about why one or two blogs that I've come across were included in Blotanical -- their focus seemed to be totally unrelated to things botanical...

I also think, as some people have mentioned, that a categorization of blogs would be a good thing: amateur, professional, commercial, etc...
2. I joined Blotanical after my first or second blog post -- a complete newbie. Without the encouragement and feedback from Blotanical's members, it is highly doubtful that there would have been many more posts and I would have missed out on the opportunity to be a member of a great community.
3. Inactivity? Of the Blogging or Blotanical sort?
Given that there are several feet of snow covering my garden right now, I would love to hang a sign in my plot saying "In Hibernation -- Wake Me When it's Spring!". If I were required to make "x" blog entries per month to maintain my membership in Blotanical, I would most definitely opt out completely. Obviously, I could post a photo of the snow covered garden every week to meet the quota but would I respect myself in the spring?

If people aren't publishing blog entries and/or are not participating in the Blotanical community, don't they naturally start to disappear from notice anyways? Perhaps the easiest thing would be to let Stuart's hardware/software/time constraints dictate when he needed to cull a suitable number least-participatory members to free up resources.
4.I think that all blog names should have the member names appended to them at all times -- it would just make it easier to keep track of which Blotanist authors which blog.
Not allowing duplicate blog names at all would be problematic if, for instance, a well-established blogger wanted to join Blotanical but couldn't because somebody was already using that blog name. Should this potential member be forced to change their blog's name just to join?

I love the site, and probably dont really make the garden cut. I'm a farmer who writes about my animals, kids, house, garden, and eco-political stuff. I'd hate to think that someone like me, or Lunda (who writes a lot about ceramics and a little about gardening) would be excluded. Except for the name, and the few computer generated marketing sites, I'd let in just about anyone who wants to be here (porn excepted! we dont need that!) Gardeners are good at weeding. The sites that don't fit wont get much attention, and will either change, or dwindle.

P.S. Is there a reason to limit the number of sites? I noticed the down time the other day, and was quite taken a back by it. There are so many friends here that I haven't added to my reader because I didn't think I needed the redundancy. Do I?

Hello Stuart, I am no longer able to write very often... long story, health and medication problems. I spend more time reading the blogs of others. If you need to drop me, that will be alright; I'll know you are tidying up the website.

I think blogs should be garden related. If someone is starting out new and don't have many post that should not be a reason to not allow them in. When I started, I didn't have many post. I now have more and I try to add 2-3 per week. If someone has not posted for 6 mos. they should be removed.

Thanks
Good work Stuart!

1. Let's focus on garden blogs (main theme gardening, not commercial web sites).
2. If it's easy to do, maybe check for 10 posts? But it seems fine to just let people in.
3. I'd cut people off after 3 months but would make rejoining easy. I'd also consider cutting people who never read their messages, or consider a different category user for those that aren't interested in connecting.
4. Duplicate names are tough. Maybe give them a country/state code? (HappyGardening-USA, HappyGardening-Croatia, for example). Well, I don't know...

My thoughts:
1. Garden blogs only. Other posts are ok (especially in the off season!) but the primary purpose of the blog should be gardening.
2. 10 posts?
3. Hard one to put a number on, but regular posts would be good.
4. Maybe do the list like this (not sure if it would work): Domain name/blog name...mine would be garden-of-eatin.com/Garden of Eatin' ...just a thought, probably not feasible!