Do you read archives?

[llcoolvad]

I've been reading online journals and/or blogs since 1998, when Patrick started keeping one. When I'd start reading a new person, I would always read their archives, and generally I'd start at the first entry and read forward -- an especially lengthy process with daily updaters like Kymm, but I persevered. It was kind of like reading a novel with really really short chapters, and I usually found it much more fulfilling than just reading current entries. How has the writer changed? What's new in his/her life?

However, it's now 2006, and starting to read a "new" blog/journal means (usually) that there are many years of entries that I'd have to read to fulfill my compulsion. So now I usually read at least the last year, but sometimes no more than that. Now this only applies to personal or journal-style blogs. I don't back-read political or links journals like Daily Kos, BoingBoing, Metafilter, or kottke. But if I started reading your blog this year, for example, I'd go back to January of 2005 and read forward until I got caught up. This still feels incomplete to me, though, and makes me wonder what everyone else does.

So my question to you is: Do you read archives? Do you skim archives? Do you just read current entries?

BTW -- I've discovered a fairly easy way to read LJ archives: navigate to the first entry using the "calendar" option, but then once in the first entry click on "comments" -- that will allow you to navigate just using the arrows at the top of the comments view page (plus you'll get to see all the comments, too). There are a few bugs that way, but easy enough workarounds. (If you know a better way please share!)

Comments

[p-j-cleary.livejournal.com]

I go backwards, always have. If I find a new journal, I read the most recent entry first, then work my way backwards until the beginning. With years-long journals, it can be disconcerting, especially if, say, the author talks about her child, and then gives birth to the child, and then is pregnant, and then talks about not wanting to have children (I made that up; it's nobody I actually read). I like the "Memento" quality of reading backwards.

[sarcasticah.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah, I read archives. Sometimes I read backwards, sometimes I start at the beginning and work my way through. It depends on the journal, I guess.

[ceo]

Dear God, no. I have 210 people on my friends list; if I read all their back entries, I'd still be reading.

[istemi.livejournal.com]

Good god! You went back and read my old crap? I feel like I've imposed.

I skim recent entries when I first subscribe to a blog. More than that depends on the blog and how much spare time I have. For a personal blog, I'm more likely to read back entries if I know them or there's some particularly interesting topic - a shared interest or good writing style. Mimi Smartypants is a good example of the last category. She's a hip publishing mama in Chicago, but she makes it all funny. Even Blues Clues.

I'll skim through an informational blog in a very directed way.

I spend more time reading back entries for someone I know well. Like Patrick, I read backwards.

[elevengirl.livejournal.com]

I do tend to read archives, but sometimes I don't read all of them. Most recently I read all of someone's LJ archives in one sitting on a cold Saturday morning in January...but the archives only went back to August 2005. I will say it pleases me enormously when my main site's stats show me someone has read a lot of my past entries (it started in June 2000). It's even better if the stats show that person comes back the next day!

[livingdeb.livejournal.com]

I rarely find new blogs I love. If I really like an entry, or I think I like it and it's particularly mysterious, so I want to know what just happened, I'll read backwards for a while, generally up to about 25 entries. Most of the ones I really like only post a few times a year, so after that reading, I just forget about them. I prefer reading in order, but only of it's easy. So I may read the ones listed in their sidebar in order, and then start on a new previous set after that.

I like the idea of reading from the beginning in order, but I don't think I've done that in years. Weird.

[grace-of-gemini.livejournal.com]

I usually start at the very beginning, a very fine place to start....

Um...no
I will read the last few entries to see what's going on now, then I'll go through the archive from past to present.
I guess it really depends on how much I care for the person.

Loved Sam, the One-Eyed Wonder-Cat.

[kicking-k.livejournal.com]

Yes, I read archives, although not necessarily straightaway. If I read your archives it means I'm with your blog for the long haul, and won't stop reading unless you stop writing.

When I started reading Neil Gaiman's blog a year ago, he'd already been writing it for nearly four years. So yes, that was a monster task. However, at the time I had a job which didn't give me nearly enough to do (I was mostly there to answer the phone) so I needed something to stop me from going to sleep.

If I don't read the archives, I tend to find I have to type words like "liposuction" and "death" into people's search boxes to find out what previously-blogged-about major life-event they're delicately referring to now, and given that they can probably see what people are searching for, I really don't want to worry them.

It's addictive, though. I can't just read five entries and leave it at that, so if I start I'd better not have anything I need to do for the next few hours.

[(Anonymous)]

It really depends on the content and the person. I get bored and distracted easily (ohhh shiny colors...) so it's hard for me to sit through the ENTIRE archive. I had however done so before... I generally start reading the latest posting.. then go back to the very first entry and back track... hence establishing a better flow and understanding more the writer's/blogger's state of mind... therefore it wi... oh... shiny colors...