I haven’t been putting my posts on the Sports TV Wars on Bleacher Report (with only one exception), because I use terminology like “Sports TV Wars” that would likely turn off the uninitiated. But they are posts on actual news stories, and I’d like to be able to establish myself as an “expert” of sorts on the topic, a sort of go-to place for analysis for those interested, which putting them on Bleacher Report can only help, so I keep not liking my inability to put them there.
So seeing my recent post on the Breeder’s Cup’s move to NBC get linked to on the Fang’s Bites blog gave me pause. Not merely because Fang’s Bites is a vaguely prominent blog in sports media circles, one I personally follow (sometimes), run by someone I’ve had… interesting run-ins with on Twitter, who nonetheless never links to my posts despite almost recommending the site to people two years ago (if only I wasn’t trying to move to MorganWick.com at the time). But clearly he felt the post was accessible enough to his audience, though to be fair the only obtuse terminology I use in that post is a single, easily-missed reference to “wars”.
So I’m wondering… should I keep doing what I’m doing (and maybe work harder on the Wars posts to make them more worthy of such links)? Cut down on the obtuse references to my own personal concepts so I can put them on B/R? Or perhaps my Wars posts are accessible enough to put on B/R as is? Would people understand them on B/R if I just did a little introductory post to get them acclimated?
The floor is open for your opinion on this sensitive topic.