July 4, 2003
Christian Crumlish
Does filtering or re-sorting the contents of a blog site make the sequence of entries any less a weblog if the reverse-chron order isn't maintained?
Anil Dash notes (and I believe there's a consensus for this) that entries, or posts, are the fundamental weblog particle. Less clear, he says, is the question of the reverse-chronological order of posts.
Is the most-recent-post-first structure an implicit promise or signal that the weblogger intends to keep the site current?
Peterme has an interesting observation about categories too, noting that not all personal conversation can or should be pigeonholed.
Posted by xian at July 4, 2003 1:25 AM
I always thought of the reverse chronological style as an attempt to keep the newest information "above the fold" (to borrow a newspaper term that seems to apply itself very well to the web). Having the most recent post last requires the reader to scroll to the bottom of the page to find the freshest information.
In an archive, however, it can make sense to have the posts in chronological order, especially if the posts are gathered into monthly or weekly pages.
I agree with the reverse chronological order being a form of showing the now, pushing forward the current and avoiding the search for news. Categories are, however, not so clear to me: I can adjust, rationalize and push content into almost any category, making relevant only a few of them.
A nice example of a Borgian library.
Other incoming links (via Technorati)
Hosted by Mediajunkie.
