pageok
pageok
pageok
Slate Convictions Blog:
The Slate Convictions blog started four months ago with a ton of potential, but "the conviction" has now been vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Dude Cool:
I never saw the potential, I'm afraid.
7.14.2008 3:02pm
Guest101:
Slate just doesn't know how to run a blog. The stream-of-consciousness posting without links to prior posts in the discussion and the lack of post-specific comment threads made me lose interest in Convictions pretty quickly; despite the high-profile participants it was just too hard to follow and not generally very interesting. The Root and XX Factor are no better, unfortunately.
7.14.2008 3:05pm
Matt Tievsky (mail):
My major complaint has been the sheer number of posts. Once you start to lose track, you can't follow the conversation.
7.14.2008 3:15pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Guest101 is right, the lack of clarity about who's responding to what post made the blog a pain to follow. It was already less lay-person accessible...

Plus, some people didn't adapt to the greater diversity of viewpoints at that blog. OK was great about this--he tries to talk as if he's addressing people who don't already agree with his points. Some posters there, however, posted the sort of snark that only works when your readers know where you're coming from. That works for me here--when someone like DB posts snark at volokh, I get it because I usually agree with him. But when some far-lefty posted snark at Convictions, I usually didn't share enough of her assumptions to catch the reasoning in the background. When you're on a blog that hosts a wider range of viewpoints, you need to spell things out a little more (and generally avoid snark...) and several posters there just... didn't.

At least that's how I felt about it. I enjoyed Prof. Kerr's posts there.
7.14.2008 3:30pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
Although I guess this post wasn't asking for feedback. :)
7.14.2008 3:31pm
MJG:
I'm not sure if it was looking for feedback either, but I share a lot of what Joe Bingham's sentiments were. I usually relied on someone else to reference a worthwhile discussion on Convictions (i.e. here), and then it was often interesting. But just landing on the page was very confusing to follow.
7.14.2008 3:41pm
LM (mail):
Bummer. I liked it.
7.14.2008 5:24pm
LM (mail):
Joe Bingham:

Although I guess this post wasn't asking for feedback. :)

It was an excellent comment. I make the mistake you described, and hadn't looked at it that way before. So it was an usually practical insight. But I shouldn't talk so fast. It remains to be seen if I'll actually learn anything by it. :)
7.14.2008 5:34pm
EnriqueArmijo (mail):
First Sports Guy takes a book sabbatical until football season, now this. Time to update the bookmarks. Recommendations welcome.
7.14.2008 5:44pm
andy (mail) (www):
I could never figure out who was talking to whom when reading those posts. Perhaps they had a sensible system to sort things out, but 90% of the time I felt as if I were jumping in to listen to a story, but the most important parts had already been told. I quickly grew bored and stopped browsing -- the site seemed to be more about the self-indulgence of the authors than about communicating to the public. But, perhaps I gave up too soon.
7.14.2008 6:00pm
Bama 1L:
I was surprised how little I liked Convictions. I think I am pretty close to the target audience and I certainly spend a lot of time reading legal blogs, but Convictions never became "must-read" for me the way this blog, Balkin, Prawfs, MOJ, etc. are. I think it was the sheer size and the amount of crosstalk going on.

Also, I imagine Convictions was a side project for all its contributors. Maybe they did not have the time.
7.14.2008 9:56pm