Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1944598, member: 19463&quot;]This is not at all the way I see the matter.&nbsp; The web sites I have valued most have been the work of one person.&nbsp; Unfortunately the absolute best example IMO was the huge site by the late Tom Mallon on ancient coins of India through the Near East.&nbsp; When Tom died earlier this year some of us downloaded sections but much of it was lost.&nbsp; He had great sections on reading Sasanian coins but no opinions and nothing dated.&nbsp; Another great one man site is Warren Esty&#039;s coverage of the Roman coins that are covered in Volume IX of the standard reference RIC.&nbsp; Warren&#039;s, like my web site on ancients, really can&#039;t be Blogs since they are older than the term (if you accept the Wikipedia information).&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>To me the difference is time.&nbsp; Blogs are time structured.&nbsp; Blogs are postings of whatever strikes the blogger on a given day.&nbsp; The information is usually ordered by date posted rather than by subject.&nbsp; Web sites tend to be subject structured.&nbsp; The web sites I mentioned had material posted ten years ago and this year but it really made no matter whether the information was 2004 or 2014 as long as it reflected what we currently consider the latest scholarship.&nbsp; That is why I like web sites better than books.&nbsp; If I learn something new about 2000 year old coins, I can go in an correct my posted error or omission of earlier time. </p><p><br /></p><p>Web sites have a structure independent of the time they were written.&nbsp; In the case of ancient coins (all I know), this usually means an order by date or culture.&nbsp; Sub-sections could be written by more than one person but most I know cover a small part of the larger subject (Coins of Gallienus; Coins of Septimius Severus; Late Roman Coins).&nbsp; A few (like mine) try to cover the larger subject in a more cursory fashion but there are still ordered sections (culture or technical, for example).&nbsp; I link below a few sites I do not consider blogs that are all the work of one person each:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/</a></p><p><a href="http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/coins.html" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/coins.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.grifterrec.com/coins/coins.html</a>&nbsp; -&nbsp; now a dead link</p><p><a href="http://esty.ancients.info/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://esty.ancients.info/" rel="nofollow">http://esty.ancients.info/</a>&nbsp; </p><p><a href="http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/severan/severanhome.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/severan/severanhome.htm" rel="nofollow">http://bpmurphy.ancients.info/severan/severanhome.htm</a></p><p><a href="http://www.beastcoins.com/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.beastcoins.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.beastcoins.com/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>I do agree that the original question needed a firm definition of just what something must be to be considered a blog.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in