At the end of each quarter, I have a look at the number of decisions that have been published on the DG3 website. Of course, it is way too early to assert anything, but there might be a slight upward trend in the number of decisions:
 |
| Number of decisions published on the DG3 website during the first quarter, for the years 2008 to 2013 |
The rhythm of publication was more smooth in 2013:
 | |
| Number of decisions published per day between January 1 and March 31, 2013 |
 |
| Number of decisions published per day between January 1 and March 31, 2012 |
Apropos rhythm of publication, you might be aware that there was a poll on whether this blog should have weekend (i.e. Saturday evening) posts. The number of participants was small, which probably means that most of my readers do not really care. About two thirds of those who participated thought that five posts per week were more than enough, about one third liked the weekend posts.
As you might have realized, the weekend posts were somewhat different from the rest, because I never published ‘important’ decisions on weekends; I rather presented decisions dealing with interpretative issues (“Interpretative Spotlight”), reviews of old decisions (“Oldies But Goldies”) and decisions that I found to be unspectacular but still interesting.
I sort of liked these posts but I understand that some readers, especially those having an e-mail subscription, were annoyed by them. In view of the outcome of the poll, I will, as a rule, not publish weekend posts any more. A reduction of the overall number of posts also allows me to take account of the (admittedly subjective) finding that, for whatever reason, there appear to be less “interesting” decisions as the overall number of decisions increases. (As a physicist, I would believe this has something to do with the law of conservation of energy.)
Posts of more statistical character (such as the present one) will still be published on weekends.
A last point perhaps. This week was special because there was the famous April fool’s post on fee reductions for applications filed in Latin. Very unexpectedly (to me), this post was an enormous success and immediately became the second most popular post ever. The fact that two fellow bloggers referred to it on their blogs certainly contributed to this hype. I have to admit that I am somewhat embarrassed by the craze because what was intended to be a joke for case law freaks (if I may say so) has reached people well beyond that sphere, who may or may not be able to appreciate it, which leaves me with mixed feelings. I hope that nobody was offended and, to end on a Latin note, that I have not become a persona non grata in the Isar Building. In which case I might as well pursue my career ... in Latin America.
Valete!
Valete!
6 comments:
I like all posts and the more the better, but I can entirely understand any decision that lowers the burden of maintaining this blog (even if that might not be the main reason).
The April fool's post was brilliant and it would have been a shame had it not reached beyond the regular circle of case law freaks!
Thanks, Myshkin.
I had no desire to reduce the number of posts, I might even have withdrawal symptoms. ;-)
"Vis comica: On devrait enfermer les comiques", comme l'écrivait Pierre Desproges dans son Dictionnaire superflu.
O tEmPOra, o mores! Yet, at least some of these pEPOle certainly appreciated your April fool’s post: those who created the "latin" version of espacenet, Latipat! See, Oliver, Latin America sure needs Patent Attorneys.
Regarding the saturday nights posts I voted no, because it's too heavy a burden for me to read them on sunday mornings :)
However, I definitely like your posts on interpretative spotlights and Oldies But Goldies, except maybe for their excess of wit.
I did not took part to the vote because, indeed I did not care about the weekly number of posts. I had not noticed the different nature of the Saturday posts though (I read then on Monday morning anyway...), and I hope that the outcome only means that "Interpretative Spotlights" and "Oldies but Goldies" will now appear randomly during the week. It would be a pity to discontinue those in favour of "regular" new case law.
The April Fool's post was outstanding, and you should not feel embarassed that it was duely noticed. The work put into it deserves no less than wide recognition!
I fully agree with ExaMinus regarding the weekend posts and hope that posts of that kind will stay.
Besides, anyone possibly being annoyed by the number of posts, should realise that you put a lot of effort in these posts, you enjoy creating them, they are for free, and - above all - no-one is obliged to read them.
Besides, wouldn't it be a pity that people can no longer wonder how you managed to post your weekend posts neither on Shabbats nor on Sundays?
Thank you for your kind comments. I take note of your desire to see posts on interpretative issues and oldies in the future.
Post a Comment