I do have a question for Bobbie though. Much as I am a fan of Hugh I was surprised to open the Guardian on Saturday and see the whole of page 3 dedicated to Gapingvoid and Facebook. Just wondering if you could give any insights into the editorial decision-making.

I like Bobbie’s take on this – that the medium tends to be used as a definition around what we do. Not always a sole one. As you say here, when you mentioned to me a while back (6 months ago?) that you felt “blogger” was a redundant term, I initially wasn’t sure about it. Everyone has a blog these days… OK so not everyone, but a lot of people who are more active in the digital / social media space do, it’s almost the same as having “a homepage” in the late 90s. So that’s why I started to think about defining both who I am and what I do.

Maybe it’s a fashion thing. Do we need to reinvent ourselves and find new angles to stand out from others? In that space, “Metaverse Evangelist” is a great title which must still generate conversation, but for how long? ;-)

Sorry for the rambling response. Just randomness direct from my brain.

We aren’t at the saturation point yet where writing a blog is George’s “normal communications” and I’m increasingly thinking that we’ll never get there. Writing a blog takes more work than a phone call or carries more baggage than an email.

I tend to think of it as a corollary to “novelist” (or even, perhaps, to saying “I write books”) because you are basically using a naming convention that indicates a packaged form of communication, but does not define the content in any way.

Still, I’d love to not have to pigeonhole people – but when you’ve got a word count to deal with and can’t call someone a “renaissance man” for the sixth time, you boil identities down to the bones.

Good to see you earlier, by the way, Roo!

James “emailer, minced pie eater and optimist”

Here’s my theory: there will come a time when blogging no longer marks someone out as communicating differently from the rest of the world. Once it’s the norm (or at least, not unusual), we’ll see people needing to describe themselves and each other more by the things they do, not just how they communicate.

To your credit Bobbie, you’re already doing this (as are the other examples cited). Calling Cory or Hugh a “blogger”, and leaving it at that, would be lazy, but you don’t do that.

That’s what I’m keen to remind people (and myself) about. That being a ‘blogger’ is not an end in itself. There are very few people who are only known because they blog. They tend to (if they’re sufficiently interesting) be better known for something else, even if the reason we know so much about them is thanks to their blogs.

Does that make any sense?

Incidentally, in the article I called Hugh ‘cartoonist and blogger’. That seems fair to me because it’s what he’s known for and, as he pointed out to me, he’s been really focused on his blog for six years.

(A side note: as Cory’s editor at the Guardian, I’m also responsible for the description of him you’ve put up there.)