<p>+1. The blog is a nice feature of this site.  I would like to commend the posts that have been done by CV contributor @AndyW.  I think there is plenty of room for more contributions on the blog.  However, in general, I think that the blog is an odd fit for CV-as-being-a-question-&amp;-answer-site, and I think that is part of the issue (although, I certainly acknowledge that the marketing is a big part as well).  All this is to say that I think there are several issues here: the marketing of the blog, and also the role the blog should play within CV.  </p>

<p>I will start with the marketing of the blog, since that is the question asked.  I do think the blog is currently treated as an afterthought--it was a long time before I realized it existed.  I agree that the blog should be made more visible.  My suggestion is to list the blog prominently running down the right side of the main page.  I would make it similar perhaps to the "Visit Meta" section, with some graphic element or icon and recent post titles listed below that.  It could be higher up the page (at least above "Tags"), but maybe could also move down below other features if it went inactive for some period of time.  </p>

<p>If I may broaden the discussion here, I do think the larger issue is thinking about how the blog is supposed to fit in with the rest of the site and the site's larger mission.  CV is, first and foremost, a question and answer site that affords practitioners an oportunity to ask people with more expertise specific questions in an unobtrusive way.  It is not clear how a blog is supposed to fit in with that.  Who would go to a blog post (assuming the marketing issue were resolved), and why would they go there?  Would questioners go to the blog to get information?  Are people answering questions supposed to go to the blog for info?  (I've linked to the blog in answers.)  How is what's posted there <em>supposed</em> to relate to what exists elsewhere on the site.  In the linked meta question, @AndyW wrote:  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>My recent post on tables started as an answer to the site, then I
  realized it was just a pain to say what I wanted to say that directly
  answered the question. So instead of not saying what I wanted to say
  to fit within the scope of the site, I wrote a blog post. I think it
  is a bad idea to change the question you want an answer to just to fit
  within the status quo of the Q/A site.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I like this perspective, but my point isn't that people must agree with him or me.  Rather, my point is that we need to work out <em>policies</em> for how information on the blog should be related to information elsewhere on the site (e.g., the FAQ lists policies for questions).  After that, we need infrastructure to encourage those policies.  I can think of several different kinds of infrastructure that could be brought to bear somehow, e.g.: the flags that pop up and mention that there are a lot of comments and you shouldn't have a conversation in comments, or that questions need votes too; the "related" links that run down the right side of published questions or suggest possibly related questions when you're composing a question; and more prominent marketing for the blog in general.  I think the blog will not be as useful as it could be until these issues are worked out.  </p>
