so the comments on my bloggie post, referencing wil wheaton, fell into two categories: (1) incredibly venomous, and (2) what the heck? for those of you who weren’t around for last year’s bloggies, i’ll try to explain to the #2 folks why the #1 folks are so pissed.
wil wheaton started blogging, oh, about a year and a half ago, and it created a sensation in the blogging community – an event which was metafiltered half to death, and dominated blogdex for a good week or so. i believe he’s the only celebrity blogger to have an open comments section like that, and it quickly got to the point where the guy could have posted “i got up this morning, went poo, and had some toast” and 148 breathless fans would coo “oh me too! we have so much in common!”. his fans were legion.
enter the bloggies. thirty categories, open nominations, then a panel of voters selected from the nomination ballots. i would theorize that the disproportionate numbers of wheaton nominators, caused the panel to be overwhelmingly pro-wheaton. he was nominated for six awards and swept his nominations. best merchandise, best american weblog, best tagline, most humorous, best new, and *choke* weblog of the year. here’s the awards page, and here’s the metafilter thread about the awards page.
wil wheaton dot net is not a bad blog, really. but it’s not nominations-sweeping great. he’s not better than all of the bloggers that he beat, he’s just more famous. i think D summed up the prevailing attitude quite well here, and Miguel summarizes the winners here. i’ll tell you right now, D is a hell of a lot more humorous than ww, and Miguel‘s tagline (a victim of kind, but unscrupulous friends — oh, there was a story behind that one, it was a great tagline) was better than “50,000 monkeys at 50,000 typewriters can�t be wrong”.
hope this clarifies things, and thanks for letting me vent, i think i needed that.