I’ve finished my feeble attempt to categorize my blogroll.

As I suspected, it did not go without a great many thought-provoking entries.

Despite that, however, I’ve done my best to place each entry in a group that best describes what that blogger is most focused on, and I based that on my own impressions.

I can’t say I’m happy with the results.  Likewise, I can’t say I’m disgusted with the results.

Mostly I feel blasé about it.  That is, I can take it or leave it.

My biggest concerns are that it lengthens the blogroll and that it places sites into categories that may or may not be wholly accurate.

If you own one of those blogs and are entirely unhappy with where your blog is located, speak up.  Either leave a comment on this post or send me an e-mail.  Even if you think your entry should be placed in a class not represented, say so.

I make no claims as to being infallible, and the groups I used were based entirely on my impressions of general content.  Should there be one I hadn’t yet considered, I will most readily address that shortcoming.

Otherwise, if anyone thinks the new setup is unacceptable or poorly presented—not to mention any other negative impressions—don’t hesitate to voice your concerns and opinions.

One thing that bothers me most is the implied disparity between many of the categories.  For instance, a lot of the nature blogs have an overwhelming number of photographs included in their posts.  As do many of the animal blogs.

But that’s part of the overlap issue I had with the original categorization, and so too is it a problem with the current setup.

Still, having the blogs grouped by general subject, I believe, makes it easier to find personal interests in a list of almost 200 entries.

Or that’s what I think…