It's a great way to promote and share original material, inspire new content, and stimulate internet culture.

But doesn't it also water-down the internet? Are blogs that only reblog other blogs' posts redundant?

It depends. There are several good blogs that I follow that have probably 90% reblogged content and only about 10% original content. The type of information you reblog and whether you add some of your own thoughts at the end of it can make or brake this kind of strategy.

Reblogging is good. But if you do 10% for your website. But above all, original content. If you are an author, you must to write somethings... If u dont write anything, you are not an author, you just copycat...

Reblogging should be about value through curation – it shouldn't masquerade as original content creation. On Twitter, retweet my favorite posts from people I follow as a way of both sharing the content and the author. For that reason, I usually use the retweet mechanic that preserves the original author.

But if people wanted that author's content they could just follow that author.

But it's hard to make your point without at least citing the content. Of course if you cite a article of 2000 words it's just bad editorial sense, but a paragraph or few sentences are sometimes necessary.

I think reblogging posts and citing posts are completely separate. It's one thing to cite a nyt article in an article of your own. It's another to repost it wholesale on your page. Don't confuse good writing with bad blogging. Citing sources within your own post is necessary as it gives your argument a leg to stand on beyond its own logic.

Curating sources to supplement your post is good. Curating sources to BE your post is bad.

Perhaps a more important question is not if reblogging is "good or bad" but instead if it is useful.

My personal experience (which could be unrepresentative) is that things like reblogging (& retweeting) *are* useful. People who reblog (and retweet) can function as: quality filters and topic filters.

(Of course "quality" being relative for each person. What I consider to be quality may be different than what someone else considers to be quality.)

People reading and following blogs have limited time and limited reading speeds. They can't read through everything themselves to find quality items on topics they are interested in. Reblogging (& retweeting) helps people find quality on topics they are interested in, given these realities.

Defibrillating the thread before we conclude it:

I realize "good" and "bad" are vague and somewhat misdirecting terms, though I think we all understand the essence of the question. And I agree that content curation is a vital process within the web.

For the sake of stimulus I wrote an article. It discusses reblogging and its faults. I focused on the negative because I figured it would make readers more polarized which makes for more interesting conversation.

So if you still have an interest in this discussion give it a read or bring up a new point.