Previous
Next
December 15th, 2005
Structured blogging is an initiative to add structure to blog posts of similar content. For example, let’s say that I write a review of a piece of software on my Wordpress blog and someone else writes a review in their Movable Type blog. Not only are these two posts structured differently, with the blogging platforms writing different code, but each tool has customizable templates so that the blogger can write any code they want. So even though the content is nearly the same, the probability that the code in the end results looks anything similiar is very small.
Disimilar things cannot be compared. Take a look at some of the recent software reviews out there: The Best Web 2.0 Software of 2005 by Dion Hinchcliffe and Year in Review: AJAX Desktops and Homepages by Steven Bryant. Both of these reviews are interesting, as they compare current software offerings with each other.
Unfortunately, there is no way to aggregate the reviews together to get a summarized view of what the industry thinks of the software, unless we do it manually, which is incredibly time-consuming. It’s good to know what Dion and Steven think individually, but I would also like to know whether they agree or disagree. If both like it or both hate it, I know much more than if the reviews were mixed, which doesn’t help me make a decision. So, if we could compare Dion’s and Steven’s and the thousands of other reviews, we could get a good measure of how the world at large is reviewing a certain piece of software.
With structured blogging, we would have that ability. If both of these reviews were written into the same XML format, search engines and blog aggregators could recognize that they were of similar kind, and could provide a targeted service that aggregates reviews and only reviews. And this idea works equally well for any other structure you might dream up: classifieds, event listings, recipes. The promise of structured content is that we would have an explosion of software aggregating it into useful, specialized services. Think recommendation systems.
This trend is not only happening in blogs. The recent service from Google, Base, uses this same concept of structure to elicit content from users. But Google only goes half-way. They provide specialized screens for inputting certain types of content (they have ingredients fields on their recipes, for example), but the resulting code is a mess, with little or no discernable structure. This makes it difficult for other services to index that content and provide aggregation services that help us see an overall picture. It’s valuable for Google, but not for anybody else. I wrote about the content types that Base provides in Google Base Item Types.
So Google provides a structured interface, but not structured code. The Structured Blogging folks, however, intend to do both. To this end they have provided plugins for both Wordpress and Movable Type. When you write a structured post, you get specific fields. When the blog tool then converts your review to code, it publishes it in a known XML format.
So let’s outline the value propositions here. Who is benefitting and how?
So notice that the software developers are the biggest winners here. Bloggers will have to do a little more work to install the plugin and dutifully fill out the structured fields for each post. Meanwhile, the job of software developers just got a lot easier, at least in terms of aggregating content and the opportunity to provide services. It’s no wonder that Pubsub and Technorati are pushing the idea of structured code so hard.
Are there any potential downsides to structured blogging? You bet. The same structure that allows honest bloggers to announce their content to the world allows spammers to abuse it. For example, a spamming software developer could easily write millions of positive reviews for their software, leaving the aggregator of the content with the burden of weeding it out before unsuspecting users really believe that ACME Ajax Writer is a 5-star piece of software. Remember <meta\> tags? This is exactly why they didn’t work.
Stowe Boyd is also skeptical of structured blogging, though not because of spam. Instead, he sees the structure of structured blogging as a departure from the “messiness” of the Web, and considers the closely-related but slightly different effort of microformats as the way to go, in part because it puts more of the burden on bloggers. (FYI: Structured Blogging supports microformats, so Stowe’s distinction isn’t absolute)
In addition, Greg Yardley sees the whole affair as exploiting the contributions of bloggers.
It’s hard to imagine that our blog posts won’t get more structured. Ask any music reviewer if they would want an extra field for “liner notes” in their music reviews and they would probably say Yes. But there are still many things to be sorted out. Will bloggers use a more structured interface for posting? Will developers get on board and write aggregation software any time soon? Or will spammers stop the initiative in its tracks? It’s still too early to tell, but the possible benefits are definitely high.
Previous
The Wisdom of GodinNext
Attention AttentionABOUT
Bokardo is the blog of Joshua Porter, a web designer/developer, researcher, and writer. I live in Newburyport, MA, USA.
Designing for the Social Web
Building a social web site or application? I wrote a book just for you!
Find out more or order from Peachpit or Amazon
Greatest Hits
Upcoming Speaking Events
LATEST POSTS
Written by Joshua Porter
Comments ( 21 Responses so far )
1. Robert on December 15th, 2005 (Comment) #
Dare I ask what a reader would gain from this? This is more of a syndication thing if I’m correct. Why not structure the data in the feed, in stead of on the page?
2. Philipp Keller on December 15th, 2005 (Comment) #
I have not read through the whole post and/or structured blogging home page but isn’t this what the semantic web aims to do..? Or how are the approaches different?
3. Michal Migurski on December 15th, 2005 (Comment) #
I like the idea of structured blogging and the aims behind it, but I’m highly skeptical.
The value-for-bloggers you list seem like thin gruel. A promise of aggregation tools & search engines that “provide valuable services for others” probably doesn’t belong in this group, and increased traffic is never guaranteed. What’s left (for me) is Greg’s assertion that this is just another consumer-side plan to defeat messiness once and for all. Laudable, but ultimately driven by the people who are interested in consuming & aggregating information instead of the ones generating it.
I don’t believe that there’s much value for software developers, either. Aggregators still need to account for unstructured, incorrect or messy input, so this is just another input format to have to pay attention to. The emergence of Atom as an RFC certainly hasn’t made my life easier dealing with feed parsing. Leveraging content and targeting advertisements doesn’t seem to have much to do with software development, either.
I guess in conclusion, I see mostly see a list of benefits for aggregation entrepreneurs.
4. Joe Reger on December 15th, 2005 (Comment) #
Hi Robert and Michael - I agree that the value prop presented here isn’t very tasty. I’ve put up a post with my take on its value in this post. I think that the current blogosphere focuses on publishing and community/network effects but dismisses personal data mining and the value that can be gained from it. Of course, I’m a toolmaker… but I’m not an aggregator. We’ve been helping people collect structured data for years at Reger.com and a good portion of the value they derive is based on mining data that they keep private. Best, Joe
Pingback: peace on the web, too :: Fragments. Part 1 :: December :: 2005
5. Josh on December 16th, 2005 (Comment) #
Joe, I think you’re right. That’s how to sell this stuff, as personal tools. The whole “benefitting the network” is only secondary. Thanks for that insight.
6. Bob Wyman on December 16th, 2005 (Comment) #
Take a look at the large collection of book reviews at http://incredibooks.com/. Each of these dozens of reviews was created using the original Structured Blogging WordPress extension. As a result, the format for reviews is consistent across the site, the data is presented in a manner more compelling than simple text, and (most important) it was really easy for the authors of the site to create these visually pleasing posts (that just happen to contain structured data.)
Structured Blogging is a thing you do — not a format. The key contribution in what was announced at Syndicate was that we’ve now provided tools to make it very, very easy to do Structured Blogging. People are doing it. Why don’t you?
bob wyman
7. Bob Wyman on December 16th, 2005 (Comment) #
Phillip Keller asks: “isn’t this what the semantic web aims to do..? Or how are the approaches different? ” Yes, many of the goals driving the Structured Blogging effort are identical to those of the semantic web effort. The difference is that while the “semantic web” focuses on attributes of the web and data encoding formats, with “Structured Blogging” we’re focusing on the activity of blogging and publishing, not the technical details of format, etc. Thus, we’re providing easy-to-use, open-source tools that are freely distributed in order to make the activity of Structured Blogging something that non-technical folk can do. When Structured Blogging becomes the norm then we’ll have “the semantic web.”
bob wyman
8. Philipp Keller on December 18th, 2005 (Comment) #
Bob Wyman:
Yeah, but is it really another format? I mean semantic web seems to come with all the formats and stuff and tools already? Seems you just need to build an ontology and then implement the format?
Am I wrong with assuming that with structured blogging there is a XML-format everyone agrees to (aka microformat)? But the standard should be highly flexible. You need to have n-m relationships, even hierarchical relationships. You need to have custom fields, etc.. and then you end up in RDF/OWL. Are there flaws in my reasoning? Or are you saying: RDF/OWL is too difficult, we need an easier way to do that?
9. Hashim on December 18th, 2005 (Comment) #
It should be the burden of the aggregation and search tools to figure out the structure that already exists in blogging.
For instance, almost all blog posts about a recipe have include the word “ingredients” and a list of those items. Almost all music reviews use the word “review”, mention the name of the artist and album, and will use a set of positive or negative words (bad, horrible, boring vs good, innovative, interesting).
In short, there’s already structure- let the computers figure it out.
10. J Wyllie on December 22nd, 2005 (Comment) #
Structured blogging requires the design of multi-faceted taxonomies, an area where a certain amount of expertise can help. It is not the expertise of software programmers. Think in terms of text database fields containing different sets of preferred terms, free form tagging (which can be converted to preferred terms) and, of course, full text retrieval. It then becomes possible to articulate multifaceted questions, such as, in the case of incredibooks, ‘all five star reviews about seafaring by Swiss authors’ and be sure that the answer will be pertinent.
11. blink4blog on December 23rd, 2005 (Comment) #
The overall concept is equivalent to have a better control for all blogs posted. But the questions summarized into 2: First, who would actually able to centralize the repository of the blogs or review? Second, what is the control mechanism that prevents the abuse of spam using the structure?
12. J Wyllie on December 23rd, 2005 (Comment) #
The way to stop spamming could be the formation of what used to be call closed user groups (CUGs) in the days of (remember!?)videotex. Today they might be called trusted networks with terms of entrance and expulsion set by the members of the networks.
Pingback: i1277 - et nummer i rekken
Pingback: Rohit Aggarwal » Blog Archive » OPML Podcast
Pingback: Global Business Watch - Your Business Information Portal
Pingback: 追求,风一样的自由 » Shilai 12/01/2006
Pingback: Library clips :: datablogging : personal knowledge blogging :: January :: 2007
Pingback: Slouching towards Golgonooza » Blog Archive » Structured blogging: tentative conclusions
Pingback: blogtoweb.com » Blog Archive » Bokardo ” Structured Blogging: Who is Benefitting and How?
Pingback: Taking a two week break, pondering structured blogging | just write click