I think I see some of my biases in there—for better or worse. But, really, any place on that chart may be exactly where someone wants their blog to be. I hadn’t really thought of that, but it seems absolutely true.

Something that bugs me is when people talk about how to measure “success” in a blog, because I think it can only be measured by the person writing or “in charge of” the blog, and it is different for each person and/or blog. Money? Readership? Community? Other?

But even though you have a clear preference, and a mostly objective reasoning for stating which blogs are overall “bests”, there still is (imo) relatively little judgement in the chart. Others can have a different preference and purpose, and be happy with where they or the blogs they read fall in your chart, even if they aren’t blogs others would be interested in reading. (I started 2 family blogs this weekend, and I hope like hell that no one but the family is interested in reading them! But for keeping in touch, they’re great!)

It can also help explain some things - for me, it makes it clear in my mind why I comment on some blogs but not others, even ones I might read consistently.

So, yeah, I like it too!

The valuable thing about this as a measure of the blogosphere is that it doesn’t assume that inclusion in any particular quadrant makes one’s blog better or worse than anyone else’s. While different people may value different things in different blogs, there is a place for everything.

Take intensely personal diarists: even if they are neither novel nor variable, they are expressing themselves for the world (or, as you put it, for their ten best friends) to see. More power to them.

As far as increasing readership, however, one could take advice from your notion - i.e. novelty helps to rise above the din of bloggers blogging everywhere, while specificity can be seen as both helpful and harmful, depending on intended audience.

In short, I like it .