Whenever I look through my own archives I find post after post I want to bring forward again.
I mentioned to Bsking and some of my children that I sometimes wonder if the 9000 posts should be curated in some way. The strength of the blog is the real-time interaction, certainly, where even the odd and offhand things like Spider or ABBA or recursive history are not really separable from the whole conversation about memory and polygamy and how everyone else's thinking is in error. Still, there are things that will be lost beneath the waves, and I sigh a bit over that. What if? What if?
She had a suggestion about one topic she still enjoys after many years, the Underground DSM. I wondered if even cutting it all down to a thousand would be possible, and what would be the point of even that. Even I only read a half-dozen or so at a time, and you couldn't do it more than weekly, so a thousand would take...three years. Just to read, not to curate. That would take ten times longer.
I look at how daunting a task it is and realise that there is no one another could do it even for love or gratitude. Only guilt can produce that type of obsession, in most cases, and I don't have anyone who has ever sinned against me so much that they owe it to me.
Sometimes I tell people to just pick a month out of the archives every once in a while and browse those. It's fun, and more than I deserve.
Some years ago I decided to take advantage of the then-new blogger feature of tags, and retro-fitted my old posts with tags and tried to remember to always use them on new posts.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's quixotic, but if I choose to try to collect and organize the posts then that feature will ease the process. And if I decide to highlight the best, I think I'll use the same machinery with BESTScience, BESTPersonalHistory, etc as additional tags.
OTOH, you have twice as many posts as I, and probably four times as many as I had when I made the change.