The old rule of thumb holds true: on those rare instances when Glenn Reynolds and I share an opinion, it's the only one worth having. Are we destined for disappointment? Well, as TMBG once said, If it weren't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments at all. As you no doubt know, Blogebrity is insisting that Blogebrity is not a parody (though it is a stunt). The good news is that if that's true, Blogebrity is doomed.
First off, though, let me say that while the magazine idea is preposterous, at first blush, the notion of a blog about bloggers (to the extent that all blogs aren't already this) isn't bad. If done right, it could be Gawkerist on a bigger scale.
But it's precisely the bigger scale that is Blogebrity's downfall, and a quick look at The List shows why. When you talk about A-list celebrities (as opposed to blogebrities), everyone knows who you mean. You may quibble as to exactly who should be A or B list, but let me put it this way: I doubt there's a single A-list celebrity -- someone everyone would agree is A-list -- that you or I have never heard of. That's because the pool of famous people is finite and generalized. So if a celebrity is on the A-list, odds are anyone who is interested in celebrity will want to read about them in a magazine now and then.
But the pool of bloggers is infinite and nichified. I read a lot of blogs, but at a glance, I'd say that I've never heard of a third to a half of Blogebrity's A-list, and probably two-thirds of its B-list. And what's more, I don't particularly care to find out about them. This is not to denigrate them at all, just to point out the problem that Blogebrity will have in launching a publication that will be of interest even to its target audience. These people may get plenty of traffic, and even TV spots or Op-Ed pieces, but if I don't read their blogs, why should I want to read a magazine about them? And if I do read their blogs, what else could I possibly want to know? Meanwhile, there are plenty of great, popular blogs I do read that are not on even the C-list. Again, this is not about questioning Blogebrity's judgment, but merely to say that the nature of blogs -- there are so many of them, and everyone is interested in their own little circle of them -- means that a general-interest round up is almost by definition impossible.
Although Blogebrity (and please, give us a name we can call you without having to repeat that awful word) won't explain how its lists are compiled, it seems clear that it's about individual people, not their blogs. So, for instance, Elizabeth is an A-lister because she once upon a time wrote a blog that everyone read, even though now she writes a blog that no one reads. (Sorry gals, but you know your stats as well as I do. I happen to really like FishbowlNY, but as anyone who has ever gotten a link from them will tell you, there's no traffic going in or out). A-lister Choire doesn't even have anythihng to do with blogs anymore. As for me, well, why do I belong on the B-list? There are C-listers who get more traffic than me and A-listers who get less. If it's not about traffic, what is it about? Surely not quality of posts in my case, as anyone who has been here for the last few weeks could tell you. And, to repeat myself, if you already read my blog, what could you possibly want to know about me as a blogger that you don't already?
If Blogebrity insists on keeping this farce going even after it has (perhaps deservedly) won its prize, it should at least drop the magazine format and just concentrate on being a snarky meta-blog about the blogosphere. It's a long shot, but it's the least bad choice. Unfortunately, the Blogebrity blog so far seems to be not about blogs in general, but about Blogebrity itself. In other words, it's just like every other blog out there.
