There's a hierarchy to metablogging. At the top you have the lofty theoretical discussions of what blogs are, then you have first the content-related and then the technical suggestions for how to be a better blogger, followed by observations on the blogging of others, then the narrower statements of purpose about your own blog, then explanations for why you've decided to stop blogging, and below that, solicitations for reader feedback about your blogging.

And so on down the ladder to unlucky town. There's the notice that your blog will be moving, followed by excuses for not blogging, observations about your readership, and comments on technical problems with the site that you've fixed. Then we arrive at the comments on less critical changes you've made to the site, as in this excerpt from Manney's old blog:

"Last night I was really high on life. While on this natural high, I read Graham's website. Now, I like Graham, and I think his site looks really cool, but some of the shit he writes on there is just unforgivable. Example: the sidebar's boxes' background-color is now a more heavily saturated green, which gives a bit more liveliness to the page and a greater focus on the new sideblog.. I tried to go to go to his room so I could read to his blog out loud to him so that he would understand, but he wasn't there, and by the time he got back, I wasn't up to it anymore.

These are followed by otherwise contentless notes to explain that you won't be blogging again until a certain date, posts containing proposed changes you don't have time to do, promises to blog more often in the future, and finally, at the bottom of the pit, apologies for not blogging, of decreasing length.