Mr. Claybourn intimates--no, in fact he says outright--that readers wish to read the most popular blogs. While that may be true for many, I think many blog readers are rather selective in what they wish to read and it may have little to do with how popular the blog is. For example, I like intelligent commentary about literature, art, and religion. When I find a site that has such things I am likely to follow the links on that site to find others in a similar vein. While that may cause me to cruise by some fairly well-traveled sites, it also sends me to outposts along the way that are less populated, but nonetheless interesting. Popularity, in fact, is more likely to be a detriment than an attraction, if, in fact there is merely an endless rehash and commentary on "news of the day," which, we must remind ourselves, is not the Good News. Smart commentators can always bring something out of the endless drivel that the media wish us to believe is important.
I guess I would contend that there are some subjects that are more likely to attract a large population than others, but popularity does not speak of the quality of such sites. However, I have visited some sites that may be rarely seen by much of the blogging world, but the quality of the insight, thought, and writing is ultimately the persuasive factor in returning to those sites. So I find myself in respectful disagreement with Mr. Claybourn. When I am reading I don't want the most popular, I want the best!
![Bookmark and Share](http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/sm-share-en.gif)