Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox emails are good in that they often come up with antidotes to received Web 2.0 wisdom. But the latest one, telling people that blogging is bad for Internet exposure, looks a bit off-target.
Trust me, I'd love to be able to agree with Nielsen's central point: that rapid-fire blogging is inferior to properly researched articles. But I'm afraid he is basing his analysis on the world he wants to live in, not the world he actually occupies. There is plenty of evidence that quickly tossed-off blog posts are only too effective. In fact, the quicker and more poorly researched the better in many cases, just as long as you are already heading towards the steep end of the power law that dominates blog statistics. How many of the sites at the top end of the Technorati stats spend a lot of time on each post? They post a lot each day, but there just isn't time to research them.