Founding Editor

Formerly 3L Epiphany
Ian Best

Editor

Joe Hodnicki
Library Director
Butler County Law Library
• Email

Contributing Editors

Marin Dell
Research Librarian
FSU College of Law Research Center
• Email

Ron Jones
Electronic Resources & Services Librarian
Univ. of Cincinnati Law Library
• Email

News Readers & Feeds
FeedBurner Subscription Service
Enter your Email:


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Resources

About Law Blog Metrics
• Email Editors Comments & Content

Blog Studies

Table of Contents

Blog Traffic


Since January 21, 2007

Blog Traffic History

Sitemeter


Blogware

Powered by TypePad

Notices

© Copyright 2007 by Law Professor Blogs, LLC. All rights reserved.

What About Political Blogs? Explaining an Inconsistency

One of the most difficult decisions in making my Taxonomy of Legal Blogs was whether to include certain political blogs. Obviously the fields of law and politics overlap extensively, and there are numerous blogs which cover both topics. My rule of thumb was that I would not consider a blog to be a “legal blog” if less than 1/3 of the posts were about legal matters. If a blog was both legal and political, but not focused too much on the latter, I usually included it in this category: General Blogs – Law and Culture, Economics, Politics, etc. To have included blogs in my taxonomy which were far more political than legal would have changed the nature of what I was trying to accomplish.

    

However, in compiling my Collection of Law Review Articles Citing Legal Blogs I was more lenient. I included blogs which were cited by articles even though they were omitted from my taxonomy. Examples are Instapundit (cited 9 times), Leiter Reports (cited 6 times), and The Right Coast (cited twice), which are obviously very different in style, content, and political persuasion. These three blogs are not included in my taxonomy, despite receiving law review citations, because they are primarily political blogs and not legal ones. My criteria for including blogs in the taxonomy and in the collection of law review articles were different.

   

Each of these three blogs deserves a further word. 

    

1. I did not include Leiter Reports, which is a philosophical blog as well as a political one, in my taxonomy. Several of the citations to Leiter Reports in the law review articles concern law school rankings. The more recent blog Leiter’s Law School Reports, part of the Law Professor Blog Network, is now the location of Prof. Leiter’s commentary on rankings and other academic matters. Leiter’s Law School Reports is included in my taxonomy in the categories Legal Academia and Law Professor Blogs.

      

2. Some readers will no doubt be surprised that Instapundit is not included in my taxonomy. But Instapundit rarely focuses on legal matters. Instead it mainly links to alternative news sources and gives brief commentary on politics and current events. Prof. Reynolds sometimes writes about space law or nanotechnology law, but only occasionally. I have great respect for Prof. Reynolds, and even blogged about his interview on C-Span here (Richard Nixon makes an appearance). But Instapundit is for the most part a political blog by a law professor, not a legal blog. The judge in this case thought so as well.

      

3. The Right Coast has one particular post that should be pointed out: A voice, crying in the wilderness, and then just crying. Tom Smith writes about the low number of law review articles that are cited by other articles or by court decisions. Readers who are interested in similar topics can also go to the posts on 3L Epiphany about Blogs and Law Reviews. Unlike many law review articles, 3L Epiphany has been cited in four academic papers after only three months.

        

One more detail concerning the law review article collection is worth mentioning. When counting citations, I only looked at the name of the blog which was cited in the law review article. I did not take into consideration whether the blog post was from a guest blogger. In a few cases an article may have cited to a post by a guest blogger, one who normally posted at a different blog, but that didn’t matter. I listed the article under the name of the blog cited. Similarly, I did not include guest bloggers when figuring out the numbers in the Group Blogs category in my taxonomy.

April 25, 2006 in Taxonomy Omissions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Blogs Omitted from My Taxonomy

The following blogs appeared in my initial list of legal blogs, but will not be included in my final taxonomy.

 

Most of the blogs are on this list because they are not legal blogs. My taxonomy will only include legal blogs, and I have decided that these do not fit the description. I will explain my criteria later for those who are interested.

   

A few blogs are on this list because they are either: 1) not really blogs at all; 2) blogs from outside of the US and Canada; 3) individual law student blogs; or 4) a repeat of the same blog under a different name.

     

Readers (and bloggers) who would like to argue for the inclusion of any of these blogs can comment to this post.

March 23, 2006 in Taxonomy Omissions | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Inactive Legal Blogs

The following legal blogs are inactive, with no new postings for more than a month. Thus I will not be including them in my final taxonomy. I will include these blogs only if they become active again through new postings.

Each blog is listed with the date of its final post. 

March 23, 2006 in Taxonomy Omissions | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Discussion Groups not Included

A reader noticed that BOP Watch was not on my list. BOP stands for "Bureau of Prisons." However, I don't consider BOPWatch a blog. It's a Yahoo disussion group with more than a thousand subscribers, and requires registration. For the same reason I will not be including the Blawger Discussion Group in my taxonomy (although it is on my list). This has nothing to do with the quality or significance of the content. But a discussion group with hundreds of participants is very different from a blog with one or several specified participants.

Readers can feel free to comment on whether they agree with this decision. But this is one I'm unlikely to change, because including discussion groups would greatly enlarge the scope of this project, and would make my taxonomy more complicated than necessary. I would suggest, however, that someone could collect and organize legal discussion groups in one location, similar to what I have done (and plan to do) with legal blogs. If this has already been done, let me know and I will link to the source.

March 19, 2006 in Taxonomy Omissions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack