Resisting a linguistic usage that's already made some headway is mostly a waste of time, but I'm prompted by a tweet from my friend Damian to try and hold the line against referring to the posts that appear on a blog as being, themselves, 'blogs'. No. OK? Just no. It's a bad habit. I can surmise how it has come about: (1) 'blog', initially, a noun derived from 'weblog' and denoting these internet diaries or journals or whatever; (2) then, 'to blog', as the derivative verb for the activity of writing on a blog; and (3) then, further along, 'blogs', as the discrete products of the activity of blogging, those individual items that appear on the (larger) blog.
But it's confusing as well as horrid. We already have the word 'post' or 'blogpost'. To call a post a blog risks mixing people up. If I read a post on your... er... weblog and then tell you 'Good blog', am I praising that particular post or your website overall?
So there, it's not just a prejudice. It's a plea for preserving a useful distinction. It's like... You can use 'criteria' incorrectly as being a singular as well as plural form. But why do this when you already have the correct singular, 'criterion'? What will someone who says 'I don't agree with your criteria' be saying?
(This has been a post and not a blog. A blog is what it appears on.)