Mark wonders whether blog discussions between bloggers have died out, lamenting the loss of the Scandinavian blog cluster of yore: me, Torill, Anja, Lisbeth, Anders and some honorary outside-Scandinavians. We all knew each other from conferences and most of us were working on PhDs in closely related fields: electronic literature, games, worlds, cybertexts. Blogging was a wonderful way to keep up with each others’ research and ideas while working alone in different cities on topics that seemed weird to almost all our colleagues at our own institutions.

I’m not sure that the golden age of conversations between us was quite as clear as Mark suggests. Did Torill ever really point out an error in a review I wrote of a hypertext? Was the cluster that clear, or was it only visible to those of us who were in the know, who attended those clusters, as Mark and I both did (and do)?

Certainly things have changed over the last four years – as Mark writes, we have less time for research than when most of us were PhD students [update: Mark finds this weird in his update to his post, but as a grad student I was paid to do research for 100% of my time and now I’m paid to do research for 50% of my time, which is still really luxurious copmared to many (most?) academic jobs] and our private lives have changed as well. I think it’s just as important, though, that we’ve also found other clusters of blogs. The field of new media research has grown immensely in the last four years, and at the same time, our individual interests have shifted or evolved. I read a far wider variety of weblogs now than I did when I started blogging – largely because more people blog, and more people are blogging about topics that interest me.

Lilia Efimova and Stephanie Hendrick are two of the people I now think of as part of my larger, looser, current weblog cluster. I read their blogs, they read mine, and we’re mutually aware of our reading because we sometimes leave comments and sometimes link to each others posts. I met Lilia at the AoIR conference in September, but haven’t met Stephanie yet, though I’m sure I will sooner or later. Lilia and Stephanie never write about hypertext fiction or games but they do write about blogs and clusters and conversations online and language and knowledge management, and they’ve written a paper which seems to be exactly what Mark called for: “In search for a virtual settlement: An exploration of weblog community boundaries.” (PDF) It’s a paper they’ve submitted for Communities and Technologies ’05, and it outlines an approach for studying weblogging communities and clusters, and describes the results of a pilot study using their methodology.

One interesting point is that their results show how clusters change over time, although the time-scale of the pilot project is only seven months. So for instance, a member of our Scandinavian blog cluster, Lisbeth Klastrup, became a peripheral participant in the knowledge management cluster Lilia and Stephanie studied in the time around her participation in a conference that many of the knowledge management bloggers attended, although her weblog doesn’t deal with matters directly in their main topic.

Lilia and Stephanie suggest looking for artefacts that can be used to identify a blogging community or cluster, much as archeologists work. Artefacts, they write, could include:

  • Meme paths
  • Weblog reading patterns
  • Linking patterns
  • Weblog conversations (these are what Mark mentions)
  • Indicators of events
  • “Tribe” marks, group spaces and blogger directories

Is it a loss that the Scandinavian blogging cluster Mark laments now links more socailly than discussion-centricly? Perhaps not – perhaps we’re still a social network but perhaps our research discussions have widened to a larger group?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “what happened to our cluster?

  1. jill/txt » decluster 2

    […] uster 2]

    TorillAnders both respond to Mark’s lament for our blog cluster that I wrote about yesterday. I particularly like Torill’s point that while we then needed to build […]

  2. jill/txt » social and scholarly

    […] ularly interesting to me in that it argues that simply measuring links is not enough. They suggest a number of other artefacts of blog communites that need to be considered. We might […]

  3. Anthony

    This is a fascinating post and I appreciate your listing of the potential identifying artifacts at the end of your thought. Thanks!

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.