I keep wondering, however, who are on the A-list of bloggers and why are they there?
Is that when they make 5,000 plus hits a day or because they have good content.
And what content is good? Is it linkdumping or is it a lifelog? Is it about politics, humor or adult entertainment?
If there are a million people running a weblog I guess you have about a million opinions on that issue.
I still have a long way to go, because I am only halfway to making 5,000 hits a day. But I think that's not bad after blogging for just over a year now.

The "big" bloggers are the most read bloggers, and as for "why them and not someone else"? it has in part to do with network effect (once people start going there, the tendency after a "critical mass" is reached, is for that to be self-reinforcing). What constitutes "good content" varies and is determined by people's tastes.

For example, lots of people like Instapundit because they find lots of links to other things there (Glenn's posts tend to be short except for exerpts from others - though what he does write, including in longer posts, is usually good content). However, that doesn't mean "if I do what Glenn does, I'll get traffic like Glenn does" - because that "niche" is already somewhat filled (people go to Instapundit, they aren't necessarily looking for another Instapundit since, like the French Knight, they already got one).

All us Bloggers think we got good content; so there is also another definition of good content - what you like, regardless of whether many other people see it or not. Gotta just be you, and be happy with the readers you get and try not to be too worked up over the fact that it's hard to become a "bigtime blogger".

IMO, it's also useful to remember their are tradeoffs. For example, I became somewhat more sanguine about being a Small Fish in a Big Pond when I considered all the mail the Big Fish get - and my personal tendency to want to read mail and (especially) write lengthy responses (either mail or blog posts) when people disagree, explaining why I wrote X Y or Z (for similar reasons I leave comments off on my blog; it's less a "them thing" than it is a "me thing").

In writing a blog, "good content" are posts you're happy with. It's always nicest to get linked to and indeed one can feel disapointed when a post you're particularly proud of doesn't get the attention you thought it might warrant, but life is life.

Good content thus varies: all the things you mention can be "good content". In reading a blog, I personally like a mix of politics, seriousness, but with humor and levity at times. Some folks like a dash of T&A. Your milage may vary.

2,500 hits per day, btw, is pretty solid. The "Big Bloggers" may get 100 times that during peak periods (major crises and the like), but most blogs get considerably less than 2,500 hits/day.

The "big" bloggers are the most read bloggers, and as for "why them and not someone else"? it has in part to do with network effect (once people start going there, the tendency after a "critical mass" is reached, is for that to be self-reinforcing). What constitutes "good content" varies and is determined by people's tastes.

For example, lots of people like Instapundit because they find lots of links to other things there (Glenn's posts tend to be short except for excerpts from others - though what he does write, including in longer posts, is usually good content). However, that doesn't mean "if I do what Glenn does, I'll get traffic like Glenn does" - because that "niche" is already somewhat filled (people go to Instapundit, they aren't necessarily looking for another Instapundit since, like the French Knight, they already got one).

All us Bloggers think we got good content; so there is also another definition of good content - what you like, regardless of whether many other people see it or not. Gotta just be you, and be happy with the readers you get and try not to be too worked up over the fact that it's hard to become a "bigtime blogger".

IMO, it's also useful to remember their are tradeoffs. For example, I became somewhat more sanguine about being a Small Fish in a Big Pond when I considered all the mail the Big Fish get - and my personal tendency to want to read mail and (especially) write lengthy responses (either mail or blog posts) when people disagree, explaining why I wrote X Y or Z (for similar reasons I leave comments off on my blog; it's less a "them thing" than it is a "me thing").

In writing a blog, "good content" are posts you're happy with. It's always nicest to get linked to and indeed one can feel disapointed when a post you're particularly proud of doesn't get the attention you thought it might warrant, but life is life.

Good content thus varies: all the things you mention can be "good content". In reading a blog, I personally like a mix of politics, seriousness, but with humor and levity at times. Some folks like a dash of T&A. Your milage may vary.

2,500 hits per day, btw, is pretty solid. The "Big Bloggers" may get 100 times that during peak periods (major crises and the like), but most blogs get considerably less than 2,500 hits/day.

(sorry for the double comment post; connection problems).

One more thing to add: most blogs are going to "plateau" - for example, if you're getting 2,500 hits/day, it might remain ~that level and take a long time to reach 5,000. That's a normal experience for most bloggers (plateauing at some level of hits/day - not necessarily 2,500).

Good advice that's easier to give than take (at least for me) is to not worry too much about it. Just write, post, and pimp your links. 8-)

IF I WERE STARTING OUT:

I would use "technorati" - it helps you find floks blogging on the subjects you are covering. Cross link, e-mail, build a following, away you go.

http://www.technorati.com/

Well thanks to your rather enthusiastic original post encouraging people to start, I have managed to get over my technophobia and start blogging. Though I'm not up to much. And nobody is reading it. But you got one convert at least.

Actually, the biggest surprise was finding out how easy it is to do - technically speaking - once the initial bout of sheer terror is out of the way.

Huzzah!

Please note a possible problem with the Instalanche -- Exceeding BandWith.

Prolly worse on a free site (like bloggedup was, at first).

[Trying to pay now; sigh.]

The important point is, do you want an Instalanche? I can't really say for myself. It might be nice, but not life-affirming. As the good Professor says, there may be a traffic spike, but folks may not stick around.

I'm of the temprament where I might actually take the downward spiral badly. Maybe even as some sort of indictment.

So I plug along, mostly writing for myself. It pleases me, keeps me to a schedule of sorts (must write something every day), and helps the family know what I'm up to without big phone bills.

This is the power of the medium. It can be small too.

Don't you think?

Your pal,

bob