MT 3.0, Spam, and Orin Kerr
So, here I am on MT 3.0. I know my site works, and while there's still a few issues with Chris's blog to iron out, but for the most part it's a pleasant improvement. And there's much less spam.
Speaking of which, Prof. Kerr, normally such a technologically with it fellow, seems to have low expectations for law reviews:
While I'm at it, kudos to the editors of the Yale Law Journal for their smart and helpful way of publicizing their latest issue. I knew that the Grimmelmann note was published and online because I signed up for the YLJ's online mailing list. The list sends out an e-mail whenever a new Journal issue is published; the e-mail contains abstracts of each piece in the issue together with links to .pdf copies posted on the Journal's website. It provides a very easy and convenient way for readers to follow, read, and even blog about new scholarship. I hope other law reviews follow the YLJ's lead.
Why stop there, though? Indeed, why even start down the road of targeted mass emails, which is but a thin veil away from spam? If I'm going to be getting law review advertising, I don't want it to be like the spam I get from every web store at which I've made a purchase. Why would I ever read through thirty emails from different law reviews to scan what they're pushing at me?
Instead, wouldn't an enterprising law review start up an RSS feed? Indeed, if that became common, we could just make an aggregation page that announced the newest publications. And better yet, by having a standard form in which articles--or at least links to them--could persist, we could start down the road of having sensible, digital-age citations and move away from the paper-obsessed format of the Bluebook.
