I wonder if the world of blogging is all about carving out your own niche. I have a number of interests, and I imagine it would be really awesome to have my job be diving into one or multiple of those interests all day to find interesting nuggets and post about them.
Some of the blogs out there are definitely niche blogs for this purpose – lifehacker, gizmodo, actually, most of the gawker network. But it’s weird to think about some of those things as niches, like scanner – is writing about absurd parts of pop culture really a niche?
But then those posts are more about selling your editorial skills and spin, the way you present your points. I know that’s true in other arenas – regardless of what i think of her point of view, I enjoy reading Maureen Dowd’s NYTimes editorials every wednesday and saturday because she says interesting things in very interesting ways.
Now I just have to figure out how to be interesting.
An aside – is there a saturation of interesting people? How many people can the ‘public’ hold up as interesting at one time? I assume there’s a formula that could be derived for this, xkcd style, that’s dependent on population size (singular specialty develops a society once there are more people interested in that specialty), number of geographic identities (my circumstances are different from yours), and activities.
Is there a point to quantifying this saturation level? Also, is there a filter size (only social types with >5,000 active consuming members count)?
Things to ponder.
I think the final, most relevant question is one that I’ll think about many times, which by pausing to contemplate I may automatically answer – am I the self-starting, own the world type that will be a successful leader at what I choose to do, or will I be more content to sheepify and join the ranks, keeping my ambition and ideas and dreams internalized?