It's been a while since I did a "meta" post, so I figured that I was due.
I check site statistics every once and a while, which is a vaguely naughty business. Despite the fact that here are hundreds of millions of users out there, many of my "known readers" have distinctive IP address locations, so I can make fair guesses of who is reading what a surprisingly large share of the time. Is it an invasion of privacy to know what a particular reader is reading?
It seems as if economics stories have been a fairly large share of posts lately, which may simply be a product of those stories being more relevant these days.
Of course, politics, for instance, has not deliberately dropped off the radar screen. But, honestly, there are sites better suited to covering the minutia of poll by poll horse race coverage, and new worthwhile things to say about the substance of candidates and ballot issues come up less frequently. Regardless of what they last polls said, Ken Buck and Michael Bennet are pretty much the same people that they were the day before and Proposition 62 still says the same things.
I've been posting less often, but with more analysis, than I have at many of the times that I've had this blog. I can't say that this is an unequivocally good thing. But, I definitely am not interested in having a blog full of two or three line posts with a link or two. If it is worth saying, it is worth saying in paragraphs. Then again, brevity can be powerful to a point.
As always, there is a push and pull between staying current and relevant, and letting newspaper and magazine editors, and a blogosphere that gets sucked into one tempest in a teapot after another tell me what I am going to think about. While I don't want to hide under a rock and ignore the world, I also want to give special attention to sources and insights that are decoupled from the dreaded mainstream media. As much as anything, the mission statement hear at WPP is to popularize information that isn't as widely known as it deserves to be.