This year's top SA blog, watkykjy, which I can best translate as “what you looking at?” sums up the predicament facing those tasked with awarding these online honours - what exactly do you look at when deciding on an award-winning blog?
The recent SA Blog Awards got a fair share of heat from the online community, with several bloggers griping about poor communication by organisers, jumbled nomination and voting instructions, and a flawed judging process. It seems what started five years ago as an attempt to celebrate and stimulate this growing form has become bogged down by the very protocols new media serves to defy.
And there's the rub - while any awards process functions according to a prescribed set of rules, the whole premise of blogs is their freedom from codes and categories, from the need to conform to a defined design, style or message. These are the platforms for quick, easy and accessible communication; the sites of live, dynamic, and constantly changing, interactive content. When you start trying to classify and judge these, it goes against the very spirit of the medium.
While the awards' intentions are laudable - giving local bloggers a bit of time to shine and garner attention, both here and abroad - doesn't the success of a blog hinge on the fact that people know about and follow it, meaning it already gets plenty of exposure? Alternatively, the fact that public votes counted for 70% of the evaluation meant a blogger could simply rope in as many friends and followers to vote, in which case the blogs ultimately getting coverage are not necessarily a reflection of those with an actual consistent following, but those that ran effective quickie marketing campaigns.
There's the argument that the awards confer a degree of credibility, which suggests earning that little digital badge will help attract sponsors to support those who blog for a living. But surely if the content is deserving of an award it can stand on its own merits, without the need for an accolade to lure potential backers.
As one of the senior judges, seasoned blogger Richard Mulholland, pointed out, “bloggers should be satisfied with being able to share their thoughts and ideas with their readers without special recognition for it”.
Fitting in
One supposes that breaking things down into categories aims to provide some sort of framework for judging. But blogs vary so much, even within categories, that this seems unreasonably limiting. Having the freedom to blog about whatever you like and then being excluded because you don't fit into one of the 24 categories stifles the individuality of blogs.
The whole premise of blogs is their freedom from codes and categories.
Lezette Engelbrecht, copy editor and journalist, ITWeb
Also, the way a certain category is approached is often so tied up in the personality of the blog's creator that it becomes extremely difficult to draw up an objective set of judging criteria. Some are serious, some whimsical, some scathing; but all deal with that given category - so are you making a call on the subject, or its presentation, or both?
One of the deciding factors, for example, is design - but who decides on what constitutes a good design for a food or entertainment blog? And then you have “best blog design” as a category all by itself.
There's also the question of audience. A highly technical blog may offer insightful, up to date content, but have few dedicated followers in terms of numbers because it happens to be about Brazilian tree frogs. Conversely, a blog may generate huge numbers simply by featuring various shocking graphics or slogans, without offering any original input.
The organisers explain on the official awards site that judges are experts in the category field and so give an air of authoritative recognition - but which experts do you employ to judge categories such as “personal”, “indigenous language”, or “controversial”?
Autoblography
This year's “best personal blog”, for example, had photos of her lunch on the homepage the day I checked and begins her “About me” section with a list of adjectives. Now, I'm not making any judgements about the author or her blog - what she does with it is her prerogative - but that's exactly the point - it's extremely difficult for anyone to make a fair judgement on a blog that's about the actual person writing it.
What makes one person's expression of their personality better than another's? And then, how authentic is the “personal” nature of the blog anyway?
Considering the blogger controls how they portray their life and character - which bits to include, which photos to post, what info they share - its authenticity comes into question. How do you “award” personal expression when the thing being expressed is the person?
There's also the question of selecting the most controversial blog. If controversy is about stirring debate and public discussion, isn't that what blogs do much of the time anyway? What defines “controversy” - is it because the blog is risqu'e, critical, politically incorrect, all of the above? In which case, how is it more so than another claiming to be these things?
The whole process just seems to kill the very idea of blogging - its freedom, its spontaneity, its non-conformity, its mutability. If the medium itself is so fluid and free to interpretation, it seems counterintuitive to try rate and quantify that, turning it into a competition.
The awards organisers have pledged to “continue evaluating its process as the blogging industry evolves and evolve along with it”. But if they really believe that bloggers are “today's new voice of society”, why the need to crown one 'voice' as more or less worthy than another?
The very futility of having blog awards seems to be encapsulated in a statement by the organisers themselves: “Today, the world is being shaped by e-mail, Web sites and bloggers. Today the bloggers tell the story. And they tell it in their own way.”
Share