My blawgroll is not updated often enough. I am trying to rectify that.
The qualifications for getting on the roll are combination of non-exclusive factors:
- How useful is your blawg? If I think it is a worthwhile resource, that gives you some points.
- How pertinent is it to my subject matter? Even the greatest workers compensation or family law blawg of all time will probably not make the cut.
- Do I regularly read your blawg? If I don’t read you, I probably won’t recommend that others do.
- Do I think that others should? Duh.
- Do you share the love? While I don’t believe in quid pro quo as a controlling factor, it comes into play. Marty Klein has never linked to me, but he gets so much juice from the other categories that I can’t help but link to him. On the other hand, there are other blawgs and blogs out there that link to me obsessively — but the other criteria are just not there. No offense to them at all, but the Legal Satyricon is a bit ADD as it is. I need to try and keep some focus.
- The dormant share the love clause I have had a few blawgs purged from the roll for failing to share the love. If I link to a blawg a lot, and never get so much as a wink back, it bugs me. When I can tell that someone isn’t respecting the “hat tip” protocol, I lose interest in promoting and recommending them
- Is my link of any use to you? Some blawgs just don’t need a link from me. For example, I read The Volokh Conspiracy a lot. It should, by all rights, be on the roll. However, I want to keep the roll rather short. I think that the traffic that would come from me to a blawg like that would be very insignificant. Naturally, I link to Volokh (and similar blawgs) in my postings a lot.
You will note that “how much I agree with you” is not a factor. That said, I won’t add anyone to my roll that promotes hate, bigotry, or whose views are antithetical to the Constitution.
All that said, there have been little prodding emails asking “hey, how about me?” recently (cough cough … Scott!). And the result was me saying “holy bejesus, he *does* belong on the roll!” So, if you are a reader and you think that your blawg belongs on my roll, don’t be shy… the answer to every question is “no” unless you ask.
With that, I proudly announce a few new arrivals on the blawgroll:
- Scott Greenfield’s Simple Justice
- Susan Cartier Liebel’s Build a Solo Practice
- Eric Turkewitz’s New York Personal Injury Law Blog
All three should have been on my roll months ago. They are all, in their own way, tremendously useful, thought provoking, and highly recommended.
I’m really embarrassed that Susan just made the roll. She’s showered me with kindness and links for a long time — in fact, I think that she was the first “respectable” blogger to do so. How do I thank her? I fail to link to her for more than a year.
Simple Justice makes a lot of sense to be on my roll. Our two blawgs are not duplicative, but definitely are kindred spirits.
Turkewitz’ blawg might be a head scratcher. What the heck does a personal injury blawg have to do with my areas of expertise and interest? Nothing. Nevertheless, I find his blawg to be thought provoking as all hell, and frankly quite addictive and detrimental to my billing!
Welcome to the Legal Satyricon’s blawgroll you three. I hope that you never have this held against you in a congressional hearing… are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Legal Satyricon’s blawgroll?
