I would suggest 'cool' as a criterium. Yes, it's vague - but that's the point. It would result in many many A-lists, not that one obvious boring one.

So what's cool? Everything that Adam Curry is not. :D

Yea, the followup. How can one post the A-List when it seems to be a that is used loosely in describing a particular blog.

As in,
"Rayne is an A-List blogger"

But, I like the idea of being a C-List blogger. A-List to me, by definition, implies that it has to be a serious contrived blog that talks about current technology, politics, and requires that the author commpose posts that appeal to the masses. Or something like that. I suppose they are merely trying to flatter one when they call them an A-List blogger. But, as you so clearly pointed out, how would one recognize an A-List blog?

I believe A-list in the blogosphere can be reduced to who was here first. Because of the age of blogs which started in 99 and naught they have enormous link equity compared to others begun more recently. I saw a figure recently which said something along the lines of each link into a site can increase the monthly number of visitors by 1000 over the course of a year. If this is at all accurate you can see that, aside from questions of quality etc, if your site has been around a long time it becomes a touchstone to others coming online. Hence the A-list.

The trick is not to allow yourself to get caught up in caring. It may be that newcomers to the web like Instapundit might derive some benfit from being called A-list by other newcomers but the term was around and being used before Glenn began posting. Once again it is best not to give a shit but when talking about the term it's good to keep separate the traffic vs longevity vs quality routine because they are not the same thing and do not really have correlation. In any event I may be wrong and I don't really care. I'd have not responded at all cept that you Rayne are an A-list member in my book. (I don't really know why except perhaps you have been my bridge into the Salon network - that and well of course I love a good rant and you can spew em with the best!)

I made some hopefully educational comments over at Meg's as well to cover more about these tools you mention. If you have any questions I may be able to help.

so who decides what blog/person goes on which list? is this like the best/worst dressed list from the oscars?

Alyssa,
Yea? The best and worst dressed list from the Oscars. Don't you always wonder what the people who make those lists are wearing?

Filchyboy,
Thanks for the info, especially the link equity, a good name for it - link equity. It would suck to have to start a new blog with a new name after we have built up our link equity. Out of quantity does come some quality. Have a good one.

I think the A-list are the bloggers who are consistently, over a period of months, read by others. It's the difference between the broadcast networks and the cable networks. Quality has nothing to do with it (Fox is an A-list network, PBS is not). It's all about reach and popularity and, thereby, power. Whether being an A-lister is important to you or not (in a non-profit medium like blogs, anyway) is a personal matter, and says something about you, and why you blog. It is true, under Shirky's Law, that being the first to attract an audience on a particular, popular subject pretty well guarantees you a place on the A-list. But a lot of subjects lose their popularity quickly and the blogs that first cover them quickly fall off the A-list. Look at the topics covered by the A-listers and you'll see the topics that most people (guys especially) talk about socially -- technology, work, sex, movies & books, politics. What's missing? Blogs by sports pundits. Blogs about celebrities. Figure out why there aren't A-listers blogging about these subjects and you'll know what the A-list is really about.

Hmm. Interesting feedback. I can see divergent interpretations highly dependent on definition. One's "Best Dressed List" is another's "Nightmare in Drag".

For instance: becoming a dinosaur, managing to outlive others, doesn't guarantee quality. It is a better predictor in that one's content must stand the test of time, yet I'm sure we can think of a few crusty dinosaurs that we merely tolerate out of politeness/ respect/ distaste for mercy killing.

Being read by others consistently is also no guarantee of quality as shown in Dave Pollard's choice example of Fox; we already know that quality is questionable, it's just ubiquitous like a McDonald's on every corner. Longevity has yet to be proven by Fox; ask me in 20 years whether they had that A-List thing going on like predecessors CBS, NBC, ABC.

Depending on who's using the term, A-List can mean nearly anything. When I hear the term A-List, I generally think of actors/actresses and models. This one's A-List, this one's B-, C-List...the only differentiation that defines who makes the cut? their last movie(s), their last photo shoot.

In other words, what have you done for me lately? Compel me to read you. I dare you.

I´m more interested in where the term A-List blogger comes from. Does it refer to the first list of only weblog, compiled on Camworld? Does anyone know? Anyway, if you´re getting started with blogging and are reading about it, you´ll always stumble over the same names, the same blogs. I guess its no wonder that some have more traffic and catch more attention, there´s a lot of media power in the hands of some.