« The coolest cycling t-shirts | Main | Who can tire of the Marla Streb story? »
Editors: An End Has a Start
Too new to review.
Bat for Lashes: Fur & Gold
Too new to review.
The Chemical Brothers: We Are the Night
Like the electronica I made in the basement, but better. (***)
Interpol: Our Love to Admire
Hit the trifecta... (****)
ATB: Trilogy
ATB meets Til Tuesday. More vocals than Trance. (***)
LCD Soundsystem: Sound of Silver
Slow 70s groove, with a mix of 80s synth. (****)
The Frames: The Cost
Slow folk, nothing earth shattering. (**)
Modest Mouse: We Were Dead Before the Ship Even Sank
Save me from the banal shit that's out right now. (*****)
Aberdeen City: The Freezing Atlantic
Listenable, but not powerful enough. (***)
Heartless Bastards: All This Time
Modern day Janis Joplin. (***)
Gnarls Barkley: St. Elsewhere
Funkadelic mo-shizzle (****)
Lily Allen: Alright Still
Cockney punk princess has bike and attitude. (****)
Miss Kittin: Live at Sonar
Purring with an 80's electro sexual energy (****)
Angels and Airwaves: We Don't Need to Whisper
Blink 182 but better (****)
The Streets: The Hardest Way to Make an Easy Living
More of the same. Two Nations stands out. (***)
Dan Waxman: Ultra Electro
Remixes of old faves...New Order, Depeche, Daft Punk...just ok. (***)
Snow Patrol: Eyes Open
Rich album that builds on the first. Great sophomore effort. (****)
Editors: Back Room
Maybe better then Interpol (*****)
Morrissey: Ringleader Of The Tormentors
Truly disappointing. (**)
De/Vision: Subkutan
Depeche Mode with and industrial dance edge (****)
Whew!
From the MarketingProfs on why blog post frequency does not matter anymore:
For me this comes down to quality vs. quantity. And I'm not just talking about the content, but also the quality of the visitors. Ok, ok, before you go crazy racking your brains trying to decide if you fit into the quality category allow me to explain.
As you can tell I don't post everyday. I'd like to, but I just don't have the time. Instead I try to concentrate on putting out a few quality posts a week. I probably average about three. Now I'm not trying to say that everything I put out there is quality. I have definitely posted some inane stuff and made some mistakes along the way, but for the most part I think people enjoy this blog.
And, I have the data to back it up. Here's where this relates back to the point made in the post referenced above. The way I see it is there are two types of visitors to this blog: searchers and regulars.
The searchers are typically trying to do one specific thing. They want to find the answer to their question and move along. Obviously some of these people find their answer here (or something we've written gets them closer to the answer) and decide to stick around. They become regulars. But, for the most part, these visitors do not engage in the conversation. Still, this group is growing, but not at the rate that I'm sure blogs that are focused on search engine optimization grow.
Regulars, on the other hand, participate in the discussion at a higher percentage than the searchers. These are the people that subscribe to the feed or come back a couple of times a week to check if anything is new. This is the audience I am targeting. This is the audience that is growing. Not totally exponentially; I'd say it's growing in more of a compound fashion.
It's a bit of a chicken or egg scenario, but I think the best long term growth strategy (for what, I still don't know) is to stay the course and focus on the regulars. Anyway, this isn't a post to get you to comment on the quality (or lack thereof) of content on this site. Instead, I'm curious if other bloggers out there have considered any of the points made in the article referenced above. Care to share your strategy? To the blog readers out there, are you overwhelmed with the number of posts from your favorite blogs?
Posted by Graham in Commentary | Permalink