If you've ever read the Guinness Book of World Records, at some point, you've got to wonder how they go about verifying some of this stuff. I mean, how do they figure out who has the longest fingernails? I do remember the rather lengthy section of the (absolutely fantastic) book Road Fever, in which the author of the book, Tim Cahill, describes the process he and his driving partner had to go through to get into the Guinness Book of World Records for the fastest drive from the southernmost tip of South America to the top of North America. He makes it clear that the Guinness people take these things seriously, though I'd never put much thought into the specifics until recently.

You see, the other day, I saw Karl Bode mention on Twitter that the folks at the Guinness Book of World Records apparently awarded the record for the "most prolific professional blogger," to a guy named Darren Murph who writes for Engadget. The award was apparently given out sometime last fall, though Bode just noticed it. The "record" was for 17,212 blog posts. Bode checked on his own work for BroadbandReports, and realized he had a few hundred more blog posts. I was pretty sure I'd done a bit more than that, so I checked. Turns out that I've written nearly 38,000 blog posts (it'll be there within a week or two). In other words, it appears I've written more than twice the number of blog posts as the supposed world record holder.

My first thought: Neat -- I beat the world record! My second thought: Perhaps I blog too much. And, finally, my third thought: just how do the Guinness folks go about fact checking these sorts of awards, anyway? On the whole, though, I'm somewhat amused. Of course, if they missed me, I've got to assume they missed a bunch of others as well, including (almost certainly) others who are more prolific than I am. So, can we do some crowdsourcing and see if we can help out the good folks at Guinness and figure out who else might be among the most prolific professional bloggers out there? Because, for something I had never even thought about a few days ago... suddenly, I'm curious.

I guess it's just natural as people get older that they pine for "the way things used to be." However, it does seem extra silly when it comes from rockstars, who generally have a reputation of bucking the system and changing the way things were done. The latest to step into this ring appears to be Jon Bon Jovi who is blaming Steve Jobs for all that is wrong in the music world. Apparently, his issue is with the fact that people don't buy records any more:

Kids today have missed the whole experience of putting the headphones on, turning it up to 10, holding the jacket, closing their eyes and getting lost in an album; and the beauty of taking your allowance money and making a decision based on the jacket, not knowing what the record sounded like, and looking at a couple of still pictures and imagining it.... God, it was a magical, magical time... I hate to sound like an old man now, but I am, and you mark my words, in a generation from now people are going to say: 'What happened?' Steve Jobs is personally responsible for killing the music business.

At least he recognizes he sounds like an old man. And it may have been magical for him, but what about all the people who bought the album based on the jacket and it turned out to be crap. You know what many people think is actually magical? That they can listen to what they want, wherever they want, and being able to find and access all sorts of new music they might never have found out about otherwise. I don't know, but it strikes me that today is a much more magical time in terms of what the fans get.

With the rise of new forms of electronic communication, there have been growing problems in figuring out what sort of government communications need to be recorded and preserved. You may remember that there were concerns early on that President Obama wouldn't be allowed to use his Blackberry. Some of those concerns were over security issues, but also there were fears about how every message would need to be recorded and available to the public at some point. This was the same reason that former presidents Bush (the younger) and Clinton did not use email while in office. Down in Florida, apparently, they're going through a debate concerning the use of Blackberry devices, since Blackberries have a special "PIN to PIN" messaging system that works among Blackberries, where those messages aren't recorded -- and certainly, many politicians (and lobbyists) are making use of the system to communicate outside of the "official channels" to avoid having it recorded.

While some are saying this is a reason why Blackberries shouldn't be used at all by these politicians, that seems to miss the point. Yes, it may seem troubling that lobbyists and politicians can and do communicate without any record, but is getting rid of Blackberries really going to solve the issue? For the entire history of the country politicians and lobbyists (from before they were called that) were able to communicate without recording the details through the high tech method of speaking to each other face to face. Saying that all communication needs to be recorded and archived in some manner ignores that plenty of conversations take place by voice all the time that have no such recordings and no way to trace them back. So, yes, worry about corruption between lobbyists and politicians, but focus on the actual issue, not on trying to cut off one of many different ways they might communicate.