Whew! I have been all flooked up w/ the floo for the past week and am just catching up.
Great sale, ExpireGuy. I don't mean to pry but I did have to look it up and I see that the origin date was 26 Sep 05. Were you the original registrant? If so, you had more prescience than most of the rest of us and I would like to know where I could purchase a crystal ball that's the same as the one that you use. :hehe:
As I've begun to think about this more, one area of concern that I have is the threefold nature of blooks as they are, currently, being defined and how the multiple meanings of the term might diffuse it's strength and maybe even call for a new word invention to keep the categories distinct.
Unless things have changed over the past week or I may have missed a post that clarifies this issue, "blook" is now being used to define :
1) A published, paper version of a blog.
2) A book that is presented online, in serial form, that is derived from a paper source, (ie a published or soon to be published book.)
3) A book that is written, specifically, for the internet and is "published" online, for the purpose of gaining a readership and w/ the likely intent of attracting a publisher.
Although these 3 uses are interrelated, is it possible that using the same definition for all 3 could cause a degree of confusion? I suppose if, the term gains in popularity and if blook becomes a household expression any concern over the confusion would be moot because blook would be a popular keyword and we would all be giving ourselves high fives by than. But for the sake of analysis, let's just say that blook had a moderate degree of success and that the familiarity factor, (for the GP), of Blook:Blog, was similar to that of Phishing:SPAM, for instance. What definition of blook would prevail or, at least, be the the definition that is most commonly used?