Great post. I recently removed Hugh of gapingvoid from my feed because he posts so much it fills the screen on my rss reader. Besides he seems less interesting now that he's the Louis Vuton of the blogophere (the photo of Hugh whining about signing "so many posters" did it for me). Boy, with the latest GodinGate etc. I wonder if someone needs to start the blog equivilent of "jumped the shark" for A-Listers :-)

excellent thoughts, Eric!!!!

although aggregating by Technorati tags still puts the most recent blog posts at the top of the page.

very true about keeping senior exects. out of the blogosphere. well done!!!!!!!!

As I told Eric, frequency is largely dictated by your blog-goals; the Huffington Post has a different blogging strategy than, for example, Eric Kintz. Regardless, Eric offers a good reminder that all blogs are not the same, and therefore all bloggers needn't follow the same prescription.

Post early in the morning.

Post often.

"Do this, don't do that, can't you read the signs?" (I'm singing that in the office)

Like all marketing (if you consider blogging marketing), targeting it to the appropriate niche is always the way to go. Find out what readers want, expect and need from you as a blogger, otherwise you'll be overwhelmed with "blogging advice" from people that may not (and likely do not) understand your target market.

There may be a few fundamentals to blogging well (write good content, link to others, etc.) but in terms of things like frequency, time of day, etc. I think we're going to see more and more dissenting and varied opinions. And the debate will only heat up.

I agree with these comments. Quality content posted once or twice a week is far more important than pithy comments posted seven or ten times a week.

Eric I've told you this privately, but I just wanted to add that it's so refreshing to see a corporate blogger making such an effort to join the blogging community, and get involved with other bloggers in THEIR space. I've seen you commenting everywhere, on A-Lister blogs, down to blogs that likely only get a handful of visitors a day. You haven't been interested in getting links, just getting involved with the community at their level.

I think it's great, and HP would be very wise to listen to the ideas you will be taking back from the community.

"As for me, I will continue to post only when I have something to say."

You hit the nail on the head there. Which is why trying to blog about something you're not really passionate about is a sure sign to failure.

Good piece here Eric, thank you.

Really good post Eric. Lots of food for thought. I agree with both you and Seth re: RSS fatigue. I am now starting to selectively ignore the feeds that just keep multiplying day after day (and by this I don't mean one post a day but several). It's tough to keep up with all the quality content out there while trying to sort through the clutter of hit-and-run posts (i.e. check out this link or 'wow, look at this cool new campaign').

This is something that's been floating around in my head for about 2 or 3 months. I have been so busy at work, I haven't posted on a daily basis as I used to... and lo! and behold! my traffic didn't suffer a bit. I think this is a wise post, with wise information. Write when you have something worth saying, write to your audience, and do your best to write well. It can't get any simpler than that.

Of course, then there's the likes of Steve Rubel who posts numerous times a day. Offering links to this and that. Sometimes useful, other times just jibber-jabber. But, that's his style. And, he doesn't drone on and on. That's also key - I often tend to write too much. I think it's time to scale back.

Glad I stopped by.

Frequent blogging, like frequent writing, is a discipline and, in theory, should result in a higher quality of stuff. But we all know that isn't the case. Most of the stuff posted on blogs isn't all that great or all that insightful.

But does that mean we shouldn't post frequently? Should a daily newspaper go to a weekly or twice-weekly format because the bulk of its daily content is ignored by the majority of readers? Should USA Today quit publishing its Money section because the Wall Street Journal provides much more comprehensive coverage and is more often read by the influentials?

Just wondering.

AC

Wow thanks guys, it's refreshing to see so many bloggers willing to challenge the Golden rule!
Eric

I do try to post every day, but I generally won't post unless it's something that I find interesting. When I first started, I was just re-hashing news from other sites. Now I've learned to keep it topical and try to come up with original content.

Since then, I've gone out and done my OWN interviews, made my own contacts, and come up with nearly completely original content. And it has worked.

My rule is no more than one post every 24 hours. Posting more than once just buries the previous post, and nobody reads it. Everybody gets a chance to read it within the 24 hours, and then I can move on. And if it's a slow day...maybe I'll take a day off. Maybe.

Thanks Eric for the kudos and recognition of benefits to infrequent blogging. There is SO much content out there, I do try to reserve posts for original thoughts with limited time. Also note my thoughts are split between two blogs, www.deckermarketing.com and www.bazaarblog.com.

Phew! My computer screen was starting to glare at me for not posting often enough. What a relief! I, too, would much rather write useful posts less frequently than repurpose other bloggers' content when I can't come up with original ideas. There is too much repurposed and redundant material in my inbox already. Thanks for bringing this issue into sharper focus.

Before I even started my blogs, I knew I would not be able to keep up even once a week, but thought better to begin than worry about protocol. Afterall, before I started my blogs, I read about blogs for months till I was to numb to do anything. Thanks for the validation!

One thing that is very useful is to set the expectation for updates. The Sharps Barber blog has a note on it that it is updated on wednesdays and fridays. Not a bad idea to set the expectation.

Actually the scheduling aspect of new media was recently debated on Joe Jaffe's podcast "across the sound". He was interviewing the guys behind the "american copywriter podcast and lamenting there lacsidasical attitude to their schedule (apparently they dont' always make it on wednesday). One of the interesting comments toward the end of the debate was "media that we can consume on our schedule should be created with the same philosophy". Here's a link to the podcast

Thanks for this. I knew something had changed because the traffic was harder to get. I really appreciate the insight.

I'm trying to gather personal consumer stories from the blogsphere and have been amazed that only a few commments have come back http://www.consumertells.blogspot.com My other blog, www.mediarelations.blogs.com has had no trouble with traffic because it is targeted to a group of professionals I know.

I agree. Originally when I first started my blog over half a year ago, I was posting and pushing posts through in a frantic pace practically daily. I sustained that feverish pace for a while until I was feeling the tension of always trying to push something "on time". I was starting to get burnt out, and didn't want to write anymore since it was such a chore, etc. Then, I decide to take it a bit easy and try posting less frequent until I finally think I've settled on posting once a week.

It takes me way too much time to do my posts as well as research, creating the Flash simulations, preparations, etc and I'm surprised that I was able to do it so crazily then.

Now, I have a bit more time to spend with my family and it's nice to balance things out.

We have rss feeds and isn't that what it's really for? To let someone who subscribed to know when you have new material so that they don't have to visit your site everyday looking for something that isn't there.

Thanks for reading.

Eric -- are you just trying to trick the rest of us into posting less???

(j/k)

Quality trumps quantity every time. Not just in posts, but in the quality of the readers you cultivate.

This is brilliant, and I pray to god you are right because I can not stand being forced to make crappy posts when I have nothing thought provoking or provacative to say. I know I do not subscribe to gizmodo anymore because they started posting 20 times daily, and 80 percent of it started to be junk.

This is an excellent article but I think that the nature of your blog. For exmaple, my blog is about SOuth Asian Business and I cover business sectors of nearly 8 countries. So, naturally, if I do not post daily more than once, I will not get good readership.

Right on Eric! Way back in the Web 1.0 days (last year) I tried to post daily even multiple times each day but found myself just regurgitating news stories and posting links. Reposting news stories is exactly what I didn’t want to do. If there was an issue out there that really fascinated me I wanted to digest the information, formulate an opinion, and effectively communicate it through my blog. One day I said screw it, it's not worth losing my job or family over, plus it's My Blog Anyway! I pay the bill, nobody else. I should be able to post what I want when I want to. I don't get paid to do it so why stress out over the daily posting think. As a result I’ve decided to only post when I have something to say and only after I have had time to really think through the issues.

Whew! I've been writing a blog on customer service and only post on Mondays and Thursdays. I've been feeling guilty on the one hand about not posting more often, yet struggling at the same time to provide relevant information that will keep people coming back. I think I'll print your post, blow it up to poster size and hang it on the wall I face in my office.-)

Interesting observations and as one who has recently taken up blogging for the pleasure of writing I understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of posting several times every day.

It certainly doesn't improve the quality of the blog and quality, not quantity, is what I've enjoyed on other blogs - including this one.

This is funny -- I read this post on the way home last night and nearly cheered out loud on the train!

Then I read a post on another blog and nearly quoted you in the comments. Then I realized that they had linked to you already.

Great article.

Seems like I am not the only one convinced that things need to change (although I agree that we need to differentiate blog by blog). I am more criticizing the general rule that you HAVE to post every day irrespective from your audience and strategy. I encourage you to spread the word, I have already seen many of you link to my blog and this post
Eric

Focusing on post frequency is a waste of time. Always has been. Always will be. What matters is the quality of your content, not the frequency or lack thereof. Post when you have something to say. Don't post when you don't. THAT is what should determine frequency. THAT is the beauty of blogging: no artifical deadlines.

Since I'm just now reorganizing my site + blogs, this is just the kind of information I need.

However, for those whose purpose is to get as many page hits as they can to puff up their ad hit count, quality isn't important: the blog text is there to hold together the ads.

I'm not one of them but it's important to know which kind of blog we're talking about.

Depends on your blog strategy. If your posts have a very definitive "theme" and they all relate to eachother—I don't see frequency as much of an issue.

I could be wrong...

Great discussion on this one. I joined it late (too busy over-posting). Wonder if I'll be the last?

:)

Initially I read this for fodder for justifying why I have not been blogging as I used to. I help run a company for bloggers for Chrissakes! And I've been blogging less. Instead of a backrub I got something much better--real facts to back up what I've been sensing. More blogging ain't always better blogging. Many bloggers who are monetizing their blogs via advertising feel similar pressure, but reading Yvonne's comment I think that even on days you do not post it, folks will come. And if they are chronically late blog readers like me, they'll use the opportunity to dig into older stuff if there's nothing new.

Great post!

Hi. I just want to confess first that I am realtively new to blogging and have never posted a comment on another bloggers site. So I hope I'm doing this right.

That said, I think there are a couple of things missing from this discussion:

1. Why is it so bad if PR people end up writing corporate blogs? They will figure out how to do it well because if they don't, no one will read their stuff.

2. People who give opinions on a given topic professionally -- like, that is what they do for a living -- presumably will have fewer problems being interesting every day on their blog.

Penelope Trunk

Hilarious. I was forwarded this from a colleague who gave me a "see? In your face!" comment. See, I blog everyday and he blogs infrequently.

I don't know if this is as much a discussion as it is validation for the masses not blogging everday. I think it is great information Eric, but bloggers are all wired differently.

I don't blog everyday because I want more audience. I blog because I have something to say. Part of the charm (in my mind) is that this is a place for me to comment on today even if the comment is that nothing is going on. That's what people can take from it, that's it's always there for consumption.

Great blog by the way.

I agree with you that a blog's success can't just be measured on the level of posting activity but in terms of quality and sustainability. In my case, for as long as my mailing list continues to grow, regardless whether people comment in my articles or not, I'm pretty much happy.

This is great stuff! I especially like #4. I definitely have RSS fatigue. I've gone through and deleted most of my RSS feeds, especially those that update constantly.

When I really like someone's blog and they don't update constantly (like Khoi Vign at http://subtraction.com) I find that I'm delighted when my RSS reader shows they have a new post. It's not overwhelming, it's interesting.

I've always been a fan of writing less frequently. I clearly don't blog for more people; I don't make any money off of it. I just like to discuss what ever's on my mind. And do so less often than most. I have a life too! :P

Yes, it is impossible to write good all the time. My best texts come from really digging into myself. You cannot do that three or five times a day and be original. If blogging is your hobby, a means to be heard, be original and you will have your readership always waiting to hear from you.

As for the RSS fatigue, it is a treal threat. I used to follow all the threads, then only some of them, then I finally discontinued all the feeds and do not use my RSS reader at all any more. I got an hour of my life per day back, hooray!

All in all, thank you Eric for this article.

Nice post, but don't Bloggs allow better search rankings in search engines?

Good points made, but frequent posting is what get a blog to rise in search results. Even if the content is re-hashed it still adds value as far a search engine sees the blog. As long as bloggers want to increase their traffic, they will be trying to post on a frequent basis.

I personally try to add something different (a new angle) if the topic is old, but some posts certainly don't fit into the enlightening category. ;-)

I personally post on 'Serge the Concierge'usually once a day, 5 to 6 times a week.

The point that Jory Des Jardins raises of people checking older posts if there is no new content is relevant. It happens more though once a 'blog' has been existing for a while (the 'long tail' theory)and has a wealth of content.

I usually keep my posts relatively short. If I point to another 'blog' as the base for the post, I add to it or use it as a springboard.

I write about topics I feel like writing about.

You point to Charlene Li and others. I think some of them get traffic and readers because of their name recognition not always because of what they add to the conversation.

Have a good day

Serge
Biz:
http://www.njconcierges.com
Blog:
http://www.sergetheconcierge.com

Excellent topic to bring up, Eric. Thanks.
I want to point out the value of not blogging alone.

Our blog (for psychiatrists) is written by 3 of us, which provides for variety of writing styles and content, while reducing that self-pressure to blog regularly.

One of the other docs wanted to like set up a schedule, etc, so that one of us was blogging every day. I pointed out, like RBL said above, that there is no need for any "artificial deadlines".

To paraphrase Khan: "Blog... or don't blog... But do it because you *want* to."

We have growing electronic newsletter mailing list, and I'm desperate to find decent, reasonably priced software or shareware for list management and distribution. We've been using Outlook and ACT and they're not working well. I was found bulk email software for sending newsletter. Are there other good options to help save my sanity? Does anyone know of any good hosting company that can handle bulk email? We need to send newsletters to about 900 customers without the hassle of restrictions. Thanks!

Eric - great post. I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points. I too find myself overwhelmed with reading mountains of clutter in search of that gem of relevance.

I can give you twenty reasons wh you should have a daily update.

Thanks to aggregators, a reader doesn't have to check in every day to know when a blog is updated. But when I check my reading service and see one blog with a dozen posts since yeterday, it makes me want to just put off tackling it. Post once a week or every day, but please make it worth my time, or I will unsub.

I think it all depends on the aims and goals of a blogger. What is the blog about? Is it a business blog, a personal journal, a collection of information that an individual finds amusing or simply a ranting blog? There are all kinds of blogs out there that are similar to few other blogs. Some just like to write. Others are more concerned about being indexed, ranking and traffic to their site, others enjoy the numerous replies to an article and some others could care less.

I’ve read an article about what constitute a successful blog – No ads. Another article states the opposite. Sometimes controversial postings and obnoxious comments make a site successful. Example: dig it and reddit. I came across a blog sometime ago and saw about 10 to 20 replies in each of the authors articles only to find out that the comments were mostly spam comments. The author didn’t bother to delete the spam posts and mind you the traffic to the blog ranked 8 on Google’s scale. On the other hand, one guy had written that disabling the blog comment is no blog at all. Few articles indicated that posting daily is a good blogging practice. Now for the first time, I am reading – “it’s no longer effective”.

Whatever works for Ms. Barbie may not necessarily work for Mr. Blow Joe.

I can give you twenty reasons wh you should have a daily update.

I'm agree with most of the part. Good article!

I think no matter how often we update the blog, we have to make people's time worth. Quality matters alot.
http://speakupforgood.com/Blogs/Blog/

"Frequent posting keeps ... executives ... out of the blogosphere"?

How is that a bad thing?

Thanks for sharing your thought about regular blogging. I agree with you in many ponits you made.

One of the blogger that influences me a lot is Wangjianshuo.com. Not sure you have heard of his name or not, but his blog is very popular with English blogsphere in China. One of his blog's salespoint is "daily update". But of course not every single post is meaningful and some of them just write-to-write.

I like your idea of "blogging in a Web1.0 way", I am need to reconsider my frequency of updating my blog.