While I wasn’t actually upthere with Mashable or TechCrunch (two major commercially-producedweb sites), this blog was listed in the “Other top-shared stories you may havemissed” category as the lone representative for the legal community. Appearingsecond in a list of three, along with a design professionals article, and aWall Street Journal article which was popular among Recruiters and ITprofessionals this blog was mentioned:
Lawyers took to “TryingYour Case in 3 Hours: California’s Expedited Civil Jury Trials Act” (TheCourt Technology and Trial Presentation Blawg), which discussed how to wage afast-paced trial in a new method being proposed in California.
For that, I must again say, “Thank you.”
We all have a finite amount of time each day in which wehave a chance to go online to catch up on news, articles, social media, orother items of interest. Given that we do have limits on how much time we havefor this, we must often make choices on what we’re going to read. Whether it’sthe latest local or world news, recreational reading or professional articles,we’ve all found our preferred sources that we tend to go back and visitregularly. Why? Often, it is because we know what to expect when we get there.We’ve enjoyed it in the past, and expect more of the same. It is often unique,original content, rather than a re-post of someone else’s articles (althoughthere are a few decent sites that offer a summary along with an article ofinterest, which was written by someone esle). That is a good definition ofquality content.
I wish I had enough time to write a new article every day,but that’s simply not the case. Sometimes, I barely have enough time to sleep,during trial. I’ve opted for quality, rather than quantity. I don’t really wantto just slap something up there to keep some fresh content to drive moretraffic. I’d rather spend the time it takes to do it right. Apparently, you whoread this must appreciate this – at least you’re reading it. And, your commentsare always welcome. Again, thank you.