Not only is this weblog the place to start getting involved with the traveling carnival we call Blawg Review, it's also a venue for reviews of law blogs.
Everyone can get involved by writing a review of a blawg and submitting it for publication here. You can submit a review of any blawg you like, and even one you don't like. It doesn't have to be a famous blawg with a million page views a month, and it doesn't have to be a rave review. Reviews don't have to be serious; we'll accept hilarious.
Maybe you'd like your blawg reviewed. Do tell us about it, and we'll see if one of our editors would be up for thator is it down with that? I guess that's why we have editors.
From time to time, our contributing editors will write blawg reviews here, but mostly the reviews will be contributed by readers and bloggers. Generally, reviews of blawgs will be published with a byline crediting the writer, and linking back to the reviewer's own blawg. There might be the odd writer who prefers to have a review published without attribution or retribution, and if it's done well, and is not too libelous, the Editor could post it anonymously.
Editor's Note: 13/04/05 If you'd like to see an example of an excellent format for a review, check out this review of ProfessorBainbridge.com by Evan Schaeffer. This is an excellent example of the length of review that is just about right for this weblog forum.
The review highlights something about the character of the blawg that helps readers better understand or appreciate it. And this review adopts a style that we'd like to see others follow, adding links to a few posts from the reviewed blawg that, in the opinion of the reviewer, give the reader some insight into a law blog that is worthy of special attention.
We think this style is very much in the spirit of our weekly Blawg Review, which hightlights the best posts from the blawgosphere each week, except, in the case of these individual reviews of law blogs, the focus is on one specific blawg, from the perspective of the reviewer.