The difference is in the simplicity of the process.  A traditional web site requires the idea to be filtered through someone with the technical skills to design and maintain the pages. The final product is never exactly what the envisioner had in mind, but rather the work of someone who took the originator’s idea and brought it to life.

On the other hand, a blog is fairly simple to set up and maintain: shortening the connection between the initial idea and the end-reader.

I’d say blogs are more authentic in the same way hand-made pottery is more “real” than factory-made dinnerware.

The challenge for this new medium is that it will, as has everything else since the beginning, eventually spin down into something less robust than it is now - at which time we’ll all be looking for the “next thing.”

Agree - it does have something to with the “structure.” Even with sites that have regularly fresh content, the thing is still less than organic - they “feel” planned and controlled.

Everything that appears on a traditional website is carefully considered, possibly by a committee and maybe with outside consultants.  Authenticity is drained out by the process.  A blog is usually written by one person- a human being not the sales director - that person has his or her own style and interests.  It’s written speedily and off the cuff.  People respond in the comments and the blogger replies opening up a conversation.  All this feels “human” rather than “corporate.”
Anyway, thanks for dropping in at the Angel Blog.  Hugh

How about the fact that writing one page of content is not the end of the process with a blog? Something akin to Hugh’s comment that the content for a blog is written “speedily?”

If I only have to write one page of content that will most likely never change, I’ll take more care with it (even if I am the only person involved). But if I know I’m going to write something the next day as well, am I more likely to just “write in my everyday voice”?

This is just one facet of many for this discussion. Not an answer, just a perspective.

I see a website as more like a beneficent oligarchy--ruled by one or the few for the benefit of the many. A website visitor does not normally expect to affect the content or the views of the site. It is there primarily for the visitor’s benefit, not for his or her input.

I see a blog, on the other hand, as more like a participatory democracy--it is the village square where everyone has an equal voice. Anyone, if they choose, can contribute to the content under discussion at the moment, and it is immediately (usually) entered into the public record. It’s not about credentials, or experience, or reputation, but only about participation.

I believe it is this dynamic of immediacy and participation that has set blogs apart from websites. I’m no one special, but on a blog such as this I have a voice, and my contribution, good or bad, will become a part of the content of this section of the web-village square. For a moment, I am on an equal plane with the blogger. That is a powerful, almost narcotic, concept!

I don’t think “authenticity” is the real issue. I’m not even sure that idea can ever be measured or even assured (how would one grade authenticity?). However, I do know that MY contribution is authentic and real.  Even if no one reads or responds to my input, I still feel more powerful just because I have a voice where before I had none.

What that tells me is that if I want to write an effective blog, it’s not about trying to be (or appearing to be) “authentic,” but about writing with an awareness of what my reader is expecting--to be invited to have a voice. They want to know, in a sense, that we are equals and I want to hear what they have to say.

Sorry for being so wordy. It’s a curse. But good or bad, there it is.

OK, you win. It’s authenticity. I’m new here and I perceive a little late that this may be one of your hot topics. I’ll lurk for a while until I get better informed.

But… Just consider me the annoying guy on the village square, but it seems that many of your points are about credibility more than authenticity. I always want to know that a blog is credible, but I have no way to know if the person blogging is actually being authentic, or just knows how to appear authentic by using all the right techniques. If the term applies at all to blogs, it seems to me it’s as much about perception as it is about reality.

That said, I will defer to your experience and insight and start evaluating blogs by my perception of their authenticity, and see how it affects my opinion of the blog. This should be interesting. I’m giving you a 10. It’s the pogo stick.

Oh, yikes! I’ve been exposed! I usually use a nom du web when I make comments on a blog (is that being inauthentic?). I learn best by interaction and dialog, but I don’t want to get a reputation for being the noisy guy on the square. Silly me...thought my name would be unknown here. Oh well, now I can be authentic.

Your wife probably knows one of my wife’s published books on motherhood. However, we also self-publish several books as a ministry. That’s why I visited FoolsBox, and then CustomerEvangelists and Boyink.com from there. We have never marketed well, and now we are about to launch a new website, a couple of blogs, and some new products. Call it some mid-life re-training. I’ll be a regular visitor here grazing for wisdom. I’ll mostly just be listening.

Thanks for the offer of the pogo stick, but we’re still looking for our own “pogo schtick.” And, no, it won’t be a “heart.” Since our audience is parents, how about a set of juggling clubs. That fits!