It’s interesting how some people criticize Walt’s methodology for giving the older (as in the age of their blogs) bloggers an advantage. For me this cuts the other way. There was a moment when the egotistical part of me thought, “When I started in 2002, I was in the top 60, because there were only around 60 library-related blogs around at that time. Now I’m not – so what have I been doing in the past three years which has caused me to go backwards?”
Of course, that’s not what I really think (so many great bloggers have started after me, to think such things is the height of arrogance, plus I've had a pretty good year, to want more would be greedy). This whole thing has been helpful to me, because it’s strengthened my main reasons for blogging. I can also look back at various decisions I’ve made with this blog, such as making it less library-centric, and spreading myself thin by keeping a struggling alternative blog as instances where I’ve deliberately chosen the less popular path. Once in a while, I wonder, “What if I had chosen a different path …” as I wonder about many other decisions. Then I realize that I would make the same decisions over again and that things are OK.
[yes, why rank at all? otoh why are some people so uncomfortable with rankings, because ranking is ubiquitous on the web, as in google pagerank and technorati etc etc. I would have been more interested in Walt’s purely subjective 60 favourite blogs, because every objective appearing calculation also contains subjective judgements/assumptions, sometimes they’re just more hidden]