How blogs should be graded.

                   I think that blogs should definitely be graded not based on length, but based on the information within them and the message they get across. My definition of blog is that it is an area where people have the ability to post their own thoughts and opinions on different topics freeley. Whether the person who composes the blog post has a lot to say or feels strongly about a certain issue and needs to write extensively to satisfy themselves, or if a person is concise and gets to their point directly is that person's own choice. As long as the post answers the question, provides examples to support it, and gets to the point I think that its length and structure are completely irrelevent. Also, punctuation and other grammatical mistakes should not be accounted for because the purpose of this blog isn't to scrutinize someone's english, but rather to express their opinions and thoughts on different things. I think that the grading system should be that a person who recieves a 3 should have a well-thought out blog with details and enough information to support and explain the question. A 2 should be rewarded to someone who has done a good job but lacked depth and relevance in their post, for example by not providing enough arguements to support their perspective. A 1 is given to someone who got off topic, did not answer the question completely, but did an OK job. 0 is for someone who did not do the blog at all or completely misinterpreted the question and wrote something with no relevance to the question itself.