Peer Review

In the wake of Neyer’s correction of RJ Anderson yesterday, Tangotiger makes the point that every blog-hater misses:

Friend of The Book RJ Anderson made a post at 6AM this morning about Longoria probably having the best rookie season for 3B of all time. Less than 2 hours later, Repoz linked to it, where people noticed that Dick Allen was conspicuous by his absence. Rob Neyer undoubtedbly read that thread, did his own research and by noon (no timestamp on his post, but there are on his commenters) noted how Longoria’s Win Shares was simply unimpressive for RJ to have made such a statement. RJ took note of the comments and research and said “I completely missed Allen for reasons mentioned above. Inexcusable on my part.”.

Now, THAT is how blogging works: one big community that listens to each other, even though we are not part of the same family. Furthermore, the “weight” of each blogger is implicitly noted. Neyer for example is highly respected, and he reads a fairly-well respected aggregator of news and blog activity (Primer) that is driven by a well-respected blogger (Repoz) who himself probably has some respect of DRaysBay or RJ. So, the “peer” determination is community-credentialed, much the way that Google’s search engine works.

He’s absolutely right. My only quibble: Tom: it makes it much easier to comment on one-another’s blog posts if you don’t have your blog set up to thwart cutting and pasting!

(link via BTF)

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
« Previous: Passing the Torch
Next: The last Manny post until the season starts »


  1. Grant said...

    Neyer said this morning that he doesn’t read Primer/Repoz. But still, your general point is a good one.

  2. Craig Calcaterra said...

    He posts comments over there, for crying out loud, including in yesteday’s thread on the Anderson thing and today’s in response to Tango’s thing.

  3. Mark Armour said...

    I have occasionally criticized bloggers for NOT doing what Rob did yesterday.  One of the advantages blogs have over other forms of media is that the writers can engage in friendly debate and disagreements. 

    I have felt, perhaps unfairly, that baseball bloggers are happy to take down a print reporter but don’t mention other bloggers or like-minded internet writers except to link to them and agree with them.  I tend not to trust people who agree with anyone (especially me) all the time.

    The next (first?) blogger who writes the words “Joe Posnanski was wrong today when he wrote …” will have my respect.  I say this as a big JoePo fan, which is sort of my point.

  4. Craig Calcaterra said...

    Good point, Mark.  Personally speaking, I find it hard to take a lot of jabs at Posnanski because so much of what he writes is sheer opinion, he tends to be aware of when he’s walking on thin ice, and inserts much in the way of self-deprication along the way.  I am quick to attack morons, but I give a pretty wide berth to people cursed with self-awareness, even if I disagree with them somewhat.

    Not that it’s any excuse, of course.  And I agree, sometimes it is a bit too chummy on this end of the blogosphere.  No one has ripped me a new one lately either, and frankly, I think I’m overdue.

  5. Mark Armour said...

    Oh no, I am not suggesting anyone should be ripping anyone a new one.  I think the free-form nature of the internet has tended to make people equate “disagreement” with some snarky takedown.  I am not advocating a civil war.  I am just suggesting that there is more value-added if the linker differentiates his opinion from the linked writer, rather than just saying “you go, Joe.”  Something more like, “I disagree with Joe’s views on Fonzie’s relationship with Mrs. Cunningham.  Sure some of it was a longing for the mother he never had, but there was much more too it than that.”

    And I only mentioned Posnanski because he is so good.

  6. David Burden said...

    I do think Rob was a bit too snarky in his critcism.  Another commentor on Rob’s post noted that Rob may have been tongue-in-cheek in his comments, but that stuff is notoriously difficult to communicate in written form.

  7. Repoz said...

    “Neyer said this morning that he doesn’t read Primer/Repoz.”

    That’s what I get for being the only sober one at SABR.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>