He’s absolutely right — and therein lies the problem.

From the start, after reading a Poynter story about his blog, I was disappointed that it was held up as an example of a pioneering “blog” by a newspaper editor. As a blog, it was, in a word, lame. Longwinded posts, sometimes with very few links, and no opportunity for readers to comment within the blog itself, forcing them to go to an associated online forum instead. Basically his blog was a series of columns in reverse chronological order with some archival links nearby. Considered as “view from the newsroom” columns, his posts were fine. But to call the collection of them a blog was questionable. It’s not surprising the traffic was poor.

Newspaper blogs are, in part, an opportunity for professional reporters and editors to serve as role models for ordinary bloggers. The idea is to find quality links, dig up interesting facts and, when appropriate, formulate strong opinions — then present all of it in clear and engaging language. In other words, newspaper blogs should demonstrate the inherent value of quality journalism even in a more casual setting.

In this context, it’s disturbing that Clifton was presented in trade coverage as even a minor pioneer or icon for newspaper bloggers.

Isn’t this the main problem with so many blogs? They lack any long term relevance. I read Jeff Jarvis and others of that ilk, but I can’t think of any situation in which I would find it useful, or even interesting, to go through the archives.

Unless your daily opinion is sought after, you won’t get the kinda page views the CPD Editor would have liked. The only way to usefully blog is to evolve into a googlable resource, or a ‘living archive’ as I like to think of it. Where factual niche posts can be adpated and ammended over the years via your comment box.

Just my theory. FWIW.