Coming across remarks on blogs that say a Blogger blog is "amateurish and ugly" says a lot about the owner of those words.
No doubt, every blogger has the right to do what he/she thinks fit for his/her own blogging space. But to deride another party with caustic, dismissive statement without weighing the argument in a rational manner is certainly unwarranted.
Looking at the bigger picture in blogging, what impression would a newbie get when he/she reads this kind of crap? If not for free blogs, many would not be able to afford to blog at all. The blogosphere would be much poorer for it.
Thanks to Blogger, Wordpress and other blogging platforms for providing and encouraging free blogging. For some of us, we'll upgrade when we feel it's time to have a hosted blog. Not because some one tells you so.
If you go by looks alone, then there's no substance in the blog. We're talking about readable blogs. About editorial content that a visiting blogger would want to read.
Does it matter whether it's a Blogger blog, hosted or free? If the content is worth reading, then it's worth visiting. That's your prerogative.
What kind of criteria is it to conclude that a three-column blog is better in every way than a two-column one? Each has its own function, needs and virtue.
Given the view that blogs should have good if not unique content and be well-designed with the right use of typography and colors, there are many of them out there in blogosphere.
Well-designed blogs can be found on different platforms - Wordpress, Typepad, Blogger, etc. - you name it. And some have great content to boot.
In the same breath, there are just as many bad-looking blogs and crappy content on all the platforms.
So what's the beef about one blogging platform being better than the other one?
