Since the discussion the other day about if FARK.com is a blog or not I've been expecting someone to write an official "what makes a website a blog" post, and was considering doing it myself if I had a spare minute. Last night Jason Calacanis did it. Reading his post and thinking of what I agree with and disagree with I'm thinking that perhaps a post isn't the best place for this kind of thing, something like the wikipedia "blog" entry might suit it better. Or it might not. Jason says there's 6 things that make a website a blog:

1. Unedited content.
2. Comments.
3. Reverse chronological order of content.
4. Frequent linking to other sites.
5. Frequent updated.
6. Honest and fair with corrections.

He says three or four of those and you probably have a blog, two or less and you don't. I'll get back to those in a minute but IMHO I think he overlooked the most important thing that makes a website a blog...

Identifiable author(s).
I think one of the things that sets blogs apart from other websites is that you get to know the person/people who write them. You get a feel for who they are because of how they write. Jason's first point "Unedited content" is key for this. If there's an editor involved you don't get a feel for how the writer thinks and feels because you never know what part was written by them and what part was changed to fit a space requirement, to conform to an editorial standard, or just because someone else felt like it. With a blog, you are getting the info straight from the person who wrote it and that gives you a good idea who that person is. I'm not talking about identifying them in a line up, I mean you know how they write and how they feel on certain things. This is something unique to blogs. You know what to expect before you go there because you know who is writing it.

For example I wouldn't go to Little Green Footballs and be shocked not to read a post supporting Iraq. I wouldn't read the Bus Blog and be surprised not to read a detailed account as to why G.W. Bush is the best president the US has ever had. This is because I know "who" writes the sites and I know how they feel on certain topics. I might not know them personally, but I know their voice.

It's for this reason that sites like Fark.com are not blogs. There's no identifiable author and there's no voice of the site. A message-board on any website includes Unedited content, comments, reverse chronological order of content, frequent linking to other sites, and depending on the popularity of the sites frequent updates. That's 5 out of 6 but I don't think a message-board is a blog. I think Fark is much closer to a message-board than a blog, but this also takes issue with Jason's approach that matching three or four items on the list makes a site a blog. As for the list, I've got some comments on that as well. (Make sure to read Jason's original post as he has comments on all these points as well, in fact, read his before you read mine)

1. Unedited content:
I agree with this 100%. I don't think any site with an editor is a blog. It might be blog-like, or as Jason says a faux-blog, or it might just be an online magazine or just a website. Not that any of those are better or worse than the others, but I think for a site to be a blog, it has to be unedited.

2. Comments:
Disagree. I would say that comments are preferable, but not a requirement. I *do not* agree with the stance that tools like trackback, technorati, and feedster are just as good as inline comments - they aren't. I wouldn't make a post on my own site that said "excellent point!" but I would post that in someone's comment. Conversely, and this post is a great example, just because there is the option of comments doesn't mean I'm going to use them. A long post like this one I feel is better suited for my own site with a link back. But finally, there are free services like Blogger that do NOT provide comments. People have to use third party plug-ins for comments and that's too complicated for many people. Also, sites like Xanga and LiveJournal make it hard for people who aren't members of the site to post comments which is discouraging to non-members.

I personally wouldn't run a blog without comments, but I don't think my opinion on that should rule anyone else's decisions. (before anyone jumps on me, I don't consider AFS a blog. It's a news archive that we recently installed blog software onto in order to make updating and archiving easier, but there's no way it's a blog.)

3. Reverse chronological order of content:
Agree. This is a given.

4. Frequent linking to other sites:
Disagree. I think this is one of those things that is cool, but not a requirement. The Religious Policeman is a great example. Occasionally he links to a news source to explain what he's talking about, but mostly the site site is just his commentary, and it's definitely a blog.

5. Frequent updated:
Disagree. Again, a bonus, but not required. There are people who write really interesting blogs but write them very infrequently. Bad News Hughes is one of the most consistently entertaining blogs out there, yet he rarely posts more than 3 times a month. Sure he could write shorter posts more often, but he doesn't and I don't think that makes his site any less of a blog. In an ideal world all of our favorite sites would have new content on them every time we read them, but realistically I don't think how often someone posts should be looked at. That said, updates are important. If the last post was 4 months ago, it might have been a blog but is not a ghost-town. So it should be kind of current, but not every site can have 15 posts a day.

6. Honest and fair with corrections:
This one is a grey area. This in concept this is good, but it makes assumptions as to what the content is. There's countless blogs where people only talk about what they did that day, or what they did with their friends, so there's nothing to be honest or fair about correcting. Or if your blog is 100% about your opinions on politics or something else, right or wrong, those are your opinions and there's nothing to correct. I think on a business-blog or if the topic is something you are supposed to be an authority on, then yes this applies, but thats not all blogs, in fact that's not even the majority of all blogs so I don't think this should be on a "is it a blog or not" list.

Something else I just thought of that should be considered is Intent. If the people don't think what they are doing is a blog, then there shouldn't be anyone arguing that they are blogging. Likewise, if someone thinks they are blogging, but are doing it totally backwards, it's up to everyone else to help show them the right path.