It's so bloggy to talk about blogging, but I have to say that blogging the terrific Yale cybercrime conference gave me new insights into the blogging process.
This was a truly enjoyable conference, made more so for me by the fact that I wasn't performing myself. I had no paper to sweat over and revise at the last moment. So, instead, I could work at absorbing what people were saying. For me, blogging forces me to focus on the themes being brought out in real-time. Then, when I've finished an entry, I can see it as a whole — beginning to end, introduction to triumphant conclusion. This not only helps me to grasp what's going on but also reveals to me what makes a presentation great.
What makes it great? Clarity, forcefulness, meta-ness. Many of the speakers at the Yale conference had all of these qualities. (Michael Froomkin has these things going for him too, and I was busily blogging his talk when my right fourth finger slipped and I pressed a mysterious “backwards” function button that wiped out my entry. Sorry, Michael.) A beginning, a middle, and an end. A strong voice. Not reading from notes. Conviction laced with a sense of humor. Awareness of time (great speakers never run short on time). And, most importantly, something to say that matters — and that the speaker deeply understands.
Sitting in the timeless classroom (literally — Yale's Room 127 has no clocks, but does have a lot of portraits on the walls), I felt that I was contributing in some way by writing about what was going on. I probably felt a little guilty about being there “just” as a participant rather than a speaker, but blogging gave me something to do. (Note to self: do not respond to IMs from two different people at the same time while attempting to record what's going on — this happened during Zittrain's talk, and I'm sorry. Sorry, Jon.)
So, although blogging means you DO sometimes have to say you're sorry (after all, if I'd gotten distracted while taking hand-notes no one would know), it adds a dimension to conferences that I enjoy.