Thanks to all who’ve commented on my last post and who’ve caused me to think and reflect deeply (and who’ve caused me a lack of sleep…).

I’m now reconsidering the cocktail party metaphor because, as Vicki suggests, the bloggers who generate the most conversation are not actually conversing much with each other (i.e. Richardson doesn’t comment much on Warlick and vice versa).  Also, Will commented that there’s no saturation point for good ideas.  So, now I’m thinking about the “marketplace of ideas.”  If the blogosphere is idea-centric and not author-centric then each blog is like a booth at a giant, amorphous flea market of ideas. 

If we accept that metaphor, then I’m still left wondering if that marketplace can get too diffuse.  Maybe Will is right in that there is no saturation point for good ideas, but is there a point at which there is too much diffusion?   This conjures images of the AERA conference a couple of weeks ago.  Gobs and gobs of good ideas (and plenty of bad ones) about education were being presented, but the conference is so damn big that the conversations are dispersed and not particularly participatory.  And, walk into the exhibit hall and there is literally a marketplace of ideas in print form; dozens of publishers of books also presenting good ideas.  But, many of those books are part of the same conversation and, yet, they don’t get connected.

So, is there a need for organizational structure?  With full recognition that the blogosphere is amorphous, non-linear, etc., I feel a need for an aggregator of ideas; I need an aggregator of aggregators.  For example, I got 9 comments on my post (whoops…#10 just came in as I was writing).  Vicki wonderfully took my idea and wrote about her thoughts at her blog.  As of this writing, she has 18 comments to that post.  I wanted to stay a part of the conversation, and felt I had three options: add another comment to my post, comment on Vicki’s post, or write a new post.  Obviously, I chose the latter.  And, Scott is threatening to take me to task.  That will certainly generate more related conversations over at his blog.  I feel like the conversation is getting away from me.

Something similar happened not long ago.  I posted a graph showing the relationship between math achievement and levels of computer use.  I got two comments.  But, apparently Scott e-mailed Dan Meyer (he of dy/dan fame) who blogged about it.  He did link to my post, but I didn’t hear or know about it until a week or so later when I happened to see on Technorati that there was a response on his blog.  His post generated 20 comments on his blog.  That conversation definitely got away from me.

So, yes, it’s great that I started a conversation (actually, I probably just re-ignited a previous conversation) that is spawning additional related conversations.  But, I guess what I feel a need for is some kind of conversation aggregator (BTW, blog carnivals don’t do the trick for me; they’re more like electronic newsletters and articles/posts/ideas have to be submitted).  I don’t want my own learning to become like herding cats of information.

Tags: blogging

The graph below plots a small sample of data from this blog, but the blip has me pondering/reflecting…

This blog is ONLY just over 3.5 months, but I find myself obsessed with figuring out if I am contributing to any networked learning.  Scott McLeod has written about “measuring” the impact of a blog and I commented that I’d like to consider some combination of comments/post/reader and number of pingbacks.  In other words, I will feel like my blog is useful/valuable if it is generating discussion.  People may come and learn by simply observing, but I don’t feel like that’s enough.

So, three months of posting and never more than a handful of comments on any one post and a Technorati authority of a whopping 22.  That’s not at all bad for a baby blog, especially considering I’ve done NO marketing of my blog other than claiming my blog on Technorati and including the URL in my digital e-mail signature (this despite being a regular reader of Seth Godin’s blog).  Oh, and my arrival on the Twitter scene probably gives me some small amount of exposure.

Yet, yesterday, I wrote about “technological doping” and linked to a CNN article about technologically advanced…bathing suits.  That post, in one day, has been viewed 4x as much as any other one post ever on this blog and generated about 4x as many comments.  Why is this?  Is it something about the post or am I somehow just generating more traffic as a natural maturation process?

I don’t have answers yet, but I have a couple of hypotheses.  First, perhaps linking to something as grand as CNNbrings traffic?  Second, I don’t “know” the commenters and they don’t appear to from the ed. tech. or ed. leadership arena.  So, did I tap into some niche where there’s more (or less) conversation?

I think where I’m going with this is that I worry that the ed. tech. blogosphere is reasonably saturated.  Related to Darren Draper’s post on Twitter Set Theory, I feel like there are some central figures whose spheres overlap considerably and a whole lot of us outsiders trying to penetrate that inner circle.  It’s as if folks like Will Richardson, David Warlick, Wes Fryer, Vicki Davis, Dean Shareski, Stephen Downes, Chris Lehmann…(and, yes, you Scott) are having an awesome cocktail party conversation and I’m standing on the outside staring over their shoulders and listening in, trying to get a word in, but not penetrating that conversation at all.  I know there are LOTS of us on the outside looking in. 

I don’t even want to imply blame at all; those folks are not doing anything wrong.  I just wonder if there’s a saturation point for social/professional networks.  For those interested in collaborative, networked, Twitter/blogosphere/Ustream-driven learning specifically about ed. tech. matters, is there a need to listen/read much more than what they can get from the occupants of that inner circle?

Or, maybe I’m just taking this all too personally  (I just want to be loved; is that so wrong?)…

Anyway, Scott asked me today if I’m enjoying this blogging thing.  The answer is a definitve “yes.”  There’s something cathartic about it and validating when I do get even a few comments or a pingback (did I mention that Eduwonkette linked to me recently?).  My academic article in an open access, peer reviewed journal has been viewed 1,257 times since Feb. 2007.  My post yesterday was viewed by almost 400 people in one day.  That’s exciting and I’m looking forward to more and more of this (especially after I get tenure).

Tags: blogging, education, technology

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziOG_GHNVq0&rel=1]
Sometimes, I feel like there’s too much “ideating” going on within the edublogosphere, and now I’m just another unnecessary ideator. Other times, I think blogging is “doing;” I’m getting my ideas out there. I’m being a public intellectual (that’s informally part of my job description).

What do you think?

Tags: blogging, edublog, ideating