The Dearly Departed

Is it better for people who stop blogging to leave their blogs for people to read the old content or to delete them so people don’t keep checking back hoping to find new material?


13 thoughts on “The Dearly Departed

  1. I left mine up when I stopped. It was no hassle but I am surprised by how many people commented on really old posts. In the end I deleted it because my views and thoughts had moved on.

    I guess it depends on the person and if they one day plan to return.

  2. Burn baby burn…I’m not sure why, but I just think I would want to delete it totally so that I didn’t have the temptation to get back at it, heh.

  3. Mark: Wait, so your blog now is not the same as your blog then? I wasn’t aware that the URL had changed.

    Kyle: I don’t know what I’d do. Actually, I think I’d leave it up. I have a couple of websites and blogs that I no longer maintain that I haven’t deleted.

  4. No, I had the same blog name but at a blogspot address and when I first started blogging years ago I had another url and blog name all together.

  5. It seems like a waste to just delete a complete blog. I have done so, a few times in the past — when I was struggling with if I should blog or not (now I’ve just given in) — and wish I hadn’t. And then I do have a couple of blogs (on blogger) that I just have “hidden”, but I still have retained all of the posts.

    I just think it represents too much time and energy to just delete; although I can see why some would want to just wash their hands and be done, as well. I guess it depends.

  6. If you post interesting material people will check it out, old or new. Sure, it is a personal decision.
    Anyway, a favor if you can…Could you explain to me what “antidisestablishmentarianism” means exactly?
    Grazie, ciao…

  7. Pingback: The Poulos Blog
  8. I think it’s best to leave it. I wanted to reread a post from some years back and the conversation that took place in the comments of that post and the blog had been deleted. I had to go find it on Internet Archive which was a huge pain. Besides sometimes it’s nice to go back and reread some of your old views and conversations.

  9. Mark: I thought so.

    Bobby: I’ve only deleted one blog (out of the 8 or 10 I have) and it was private anyway.

    Katia: I’m no expert and I rarely hear the word used, but if I recall correctly, years ago there was a group that wanted to “disestablish” the Church of England as the official state church in Great Britain, and the group that opposed this group were the “anti-disestablishmentarians.” So these were the folks who wanted the Church of England to remain the official state church. Past that I don’t know.

    Bryan: Yeah, the lost conversations are what bother me the most. A few years ago I had some really good discussions/debates with a young guy who was just getting into critical biblical scholarship and every once so often I wish I could go back and revisit those comments but he deleted the blog.

  10. As someone who hosted several of the Biblical Studies Carnival posts, I have found it extremely annoying that several people deleted their blogs, breaking all links to the old blogs. It’s an internet dilletante move, one extremely inconsiderate of others. One unfortunate result of this practice is that I’m now much less amenable to link to other blogs at all. Will it be there next week? next month? next year? The worst are the serial deleters. One just can’t take such a person seriously.

    No one requires that one’s words express one’s own opinion for more than the date on which they’re made. If one’s opinions or ideas change, then document that change. A blog is a “web log,” a long-term diary, after all. Changes are expected.

  11. Kevin: That annoys me as well. I’ve gone back through my archives and edited quite a few posts that had links leading to defunct blogs.

    And you make a great point in your final statement! I’ve seen more than a few people worry about something they’ve said on their blog for fear that it might come to bite them in the butt if a future employer were to come across it.

  12. The point is to never be so crass as to post anything that you wouldn’t want said in front of your mother, or anyone else whom you wouldn’t want to offend.

    This is public conversation, after all, and should maintain the same kind of civility that one has in conversations with people face-to-face. I know that there is a cutesy concept that it’s “internetty” to hide behind pseudonyms and such, but scholars who read such don’t take such people seriously. If one is lacking the integrity to post under one’s real name, and to devote time to meaningful discussions of long-lasting value, and to maintain the sites on which those discussions occur for the future, then one is not serious in what one is doing. It’s the best approach. And because that’s the approach I take, I’m having fascinating conversations with world-class scholars through email, and one of them even thought it worthwhile to publish a series of my posts in one of his books. That’s where integrity leads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s