A couple of weeks ago, I split my blog into two, for reasons which I explained here. I have had a bit of feedback that this maybe wasn't the best idea, so I am asking anyone who reads this just to give me some feedback - good or bad.
To elaborate on my reasoning a little: the blog had a number of elements (humour, music, literature etc.) that were fairly middle-of-the-road. You like it or you don't, you take it or leave it. But there were two major subjects - motorcycling and politics - which were slightly more 'specialised'. I wanted to write in some depth on both, but felt inhibited in doing so, because:
- if I write about biking issues in the kind of depth I wanted to, and the kind of depth my biking readers would appreciate, I might be boring the pants off my general readers who, if I am honest, form the bulk of my visitor numbers;
- if I write about political or current issues, I am usually right-of-centre, anti-statist and pro-freedom, and I might be alienating many of my biker readers who, for all I know, could be card-carrying Marxists.
So, do I keep two blogs going, or go back to just the one? One is certainly much easier, and has the benefit of being a bit eclectic and random in its range of topics. If you're a regular reader, or just an occasional visitor, please leave a comment with your opinion. I'd really appreciate it.