TTAC apparently needs to reacquaint themselves with the purpose of a comment board–which is to let readers critique a blog for accuracy and quality. Properly monitored, it does just that; you screw up, and your readers will let you know much faster than a dead-tree, old-school magazine.

So, please–talk about cars and the car biz. Leave the whining to others.

My sense is that the major auto blogs have a lot of overlapping content. It can get quite incestuous. I suppose a certain amount of cross-pollination is inevitable, but it seems like some blogs try harder than others to provide some value added. Alas, sometimes the main value added comes from the quality of the comments sections. Here TTAC and Jalopnik stand head and shoulders about Autoblog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_1007

On another note:

This idea of “I’ll rub your back if you rub my back” just feels “dirty”. Screw journalistic integrity and high standards, let’s see the hits count grow. Too bad, b/c their list of the 100 ugliest cars of all time was a somewhat entertaining read…

[NB: TTAC does not base its blog roll on traffic, or sell space on same. We only recommend sites we deem worthy of your time.]

I don’t read scads of other car sites or auto blogs. I have an interest in many different subjects, so in order to take good care of all of my little tomato plants, I’ve narrowed the auto stuff down to one single site: TTAC. I go to a Prius-centric site for Prius specific issues, but I don’t read them every day like I do TTAC.

As with other sites of other interests/subjects, over time, and to save time, I have developed a natural resistance to taking the Yellow Brick Road (links), even if a link is deemed worthy of my time.

Ultimately, I have to be the judge of that, and in my experience, it’s rare that a link is really worthy. It’s not a slight against TTAC, because I do this with all blog/news sites that I visit.

For example, this time I did click the “shorty” link. Not a clear enough picture of the minivan. I saw reader comments, but didn’t have the time to dig into them. This is a prime example of how a “supporting link” really didn’t enhance the original statement or my understanding of it (or of the world around me).

Oh yes, I missed something somewhere along the way. What does “NB:” mean? Thanks!