1.As I did on the IRC chat, I agree with you. If a point of view or source of information is so original I will make an exception. But as a rule I read only well-written material. It doesn't have to be publishing quality, but it should be reasonably well-done. As you talked about with podcasts, it doesn't need to be radio quality, but if you can clean it up and make it semi-professional, it communicates more effectively.

And while I'm at it, one of my pet peeves is gratuitous use of obscenity in blog posts. I don't mind that sort of thing in conversation (and I can talk like a sailor myself at times), but it does annoy me in business-oriented blogging.

2.Good writing is important to me. I will read something for information and put up with bad writing to get it but I won't stay subscribed. Whether as a writer or an editor, I've always found that a well-written piece is more effective than a poorly-written one. I consider the difference between writing and talking as being similar to the difference between what a person sees and what a camera sees. When we hear someone speak, we fill in all those awkward pauses, repeated words and clumsy constructions. But when we read something, we don't ignore those things. They grate on us and obscure the message. Similarly, when we look at a person standing in front of us, we don't notice the tree growing out of their head that is so prevalent in the photograph. A good writer makes sure that the trees are where they are supposed to be.

3.Good writing is certainly important. As we talked about over lunch, Shel, it's one of the many factors that influences the overall perception of a blog (or a Web site, or an ad, or an e-mail, or whatever). I don't require perfection, and I certainly slip up from time to time, but the worse the writing, the greater the distraction from the content.

4.Of course I agree with the comments here, that I'd prefer to see good writing than bad, but who wouldn't?
Isn't the issue where you would place that on a list of priorities?
If so, I'd still suggest it was quite high on the list, but beneath originality of ideas and, I think, an open, conversational tone.
At risk of launching into a bit of a thesis, I made a similar point on my blog recently about podcasting, on the back of a PR Week (UK) opinion piece suggesting that only professional broadcasters should podcast.
That is clearly tosh.
The point I made is that I will frequently listen to podcasts which are (at times) poorly produced, so long as their content is good. That includes demonstrating an understanding of the social part of social media.
At one extreme, you have FIR, for example, which is well produced (though, you'll admit, not by professionals), invites comments, contributions, reflects conversations, and is inclusive rather than didactic. That scores maximum points from me.
At the other end of the scale, PR Week (UK) podcasts are strictly one-way. The words spoken are OK, the interviews sometimes enlightening, but the format is a huge turnoff. It doesn't matter that it's poorly produced, they've lost me long before then.
Similarly, a blog equivalent obviously wouldn't get my subscription, but not just because the writing was bad.

5.I, too, prefer good writing, especially since "good writing" probably gets pretty close to meaning "writing that I like" :) But that's not exactly what I meant in my presentation. I meant that because we're posting so frequently, we generally don't have time to polish the way we would if publishing in other forms. But (I was trying to say) that not only gives us a less-protected glimpse into the writer, it also establishes an ethos of forgiveness for small errors, and forgiveness is profoundly humanizing.

Sorry I didn't put it better in my talk.

Good to see you yesterday, Shel.

6.Certainly a typo or gramatcial error here or there can and should be forgiven, especially if the idea being written about is compelling enough. (Although too many typos can be distracting enough to make a reader lose sight of that idea.)

What is critical is the way we use language to persuade. Using the exact right word(s) is what causes readers to identify, what persuades. Conversely, incorrect language usage undermines not only the idea, but often the person.

This holds true any any form of writing from blogs to press releases to memos to love letters.

7.Sounds like things are fun in Vegas... like Tom Murphy wrote on his blog today, I feel like all the kids are playing outside while I am stuck inside.

It occurs to me that bloggers who write good stuff also tend to be good writers. Probably because they realized at an early age that good content needs to be dressed in good spelling, grammar and rhetoric.

Then again, most of the bloggers I read are professional writers... might have something to do with it.

8.David Weinberger's comment makes it sound like there was a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what the presentation was supposed to be about. It seems pretty clear that many blogs are less polished forms of writing and that rapid, conversation style can be part of the appeal, rather than a detriment. You don't have to be a New York Times calibre writer to be a top-level blogger, and in fact a blogger might appear stuffy if he writes too formally. A typo on a blog ("I?m not talking a pretentious writing here") doesn't have the same effect it would if it were in a printed publication or an online magazine. I think the message that you don't need to be a Writer to blog is a great one to embrace in what's supposed to be a wonderfully democratic medium.

9.Like anything else, good writing can help bring otherwise mundane content to life, make good content exciting, and make outstanding content the stuff you want to share. If you are sharing true nuggets of wisdom, then the writing may not matter. But it can certainly help!

10.Diane, the misunderstanding was over one passing point; Shel's done a good job liveblogging the rest. And now I'll know to be clearer about the "writing badly" point.