tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post2024715936753680762..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Philosophers' Carnival #74Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-56532733927708275332008-08-01T00:31:00.000-04:002008-08-01T00:31:00.000-04:00I think we should also, as a convention, mention i...I think we should also, as a convention, mention in the description of the submission that it's not yours and that it comes from one of the higher-traffic blogs. <BR/><BR/>This so that the people who are reading those blogs - by definition a lot of people - don't keep seeing carnivals half-filled with stuff they have already seen; since the posts are tagged, they should be able to ignore them easily. <BR/><BR/>On reflection this may be more trouble than it's worth.Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-86630743734671063152008-07-31T09:01:00.000-04:002008-07-31T09:01:00.000-04:00"there were several more interesting posts on the ..."there were several more interesting posts on the usual philosphy blogs last month, but hardly any were submitted"<BR/><BR/>I suspect the carnival might be better if more people submitted others' posts, for precisely the reason you bring up.<BR/><BR/>Some of the larger blogs (PEA-soup, TAR, etc.) don't tend to submit themselves to the carnival. These blogs are great, but most of us don't have time to read all the posts on all of these larger blogs. If readers submitted the best posts from those sites to the carnival, it would be most helpful.<BR/><BR/>(In order to avoid hypocrisy, I''d better start nominating others' posts more often!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-23735162247019355082008-07-31T06:01:00.000-04:002008-07-31T06:01:00.000-04:00...oops, on rereading that it doesn't sound so wit......oops, on rereading that it doesn't sound so witty. Actually, I agree with you; the annoying thing is that there were several more interesting posts on the usual philosphy blogs last month, but hardly any were submitted (and I didn't want to nominate too many myself, as then it would just be my round-up:-)Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-10498867748784932582008-07-30T11:12:00.000-04:002008-07-30T11:12:00.000-04:00Well, maybe it was a mixed bag because philosopher...Well, maybe it was a mixed bag because philosophers are a mixed bunch, as the host was acutely aware. And maybe there would have been more stuff that you liked, in it, if you had submitted something yourself. And maybe it would have been objectively better if what you submitted had been objectively brilliant (but maybe not, of course:-)<BR/><BR/>(Incidentally, why don't these in-post comment-boxes allow previews? They'd be quite good but as it is, they're a mixed box:-)Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-87695807121663041222008-07-27T20:49:00.000-04:002008-07-27T20:49:00.000-04:00When you say mixed bag, (an in general things like...When you say mixed bag, (an in general things like that) do you mean in a subjective or objective sense?Alrenoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11119846531341190283noreply@blogger.com