In this post, May It Please The Court brings up many good points about citing unpublished opinions. Unpublished opinions do not have the same precedential value as published opinions, obviously, but they continue to be cited and relied upon.

When blogs begin to get cited - as they inevitably will - for persuasive authority in a specialized area of law or simple guidance to a new or unknown area (much as treatises or scholarly articles are cited now) will they be considered of lesser value than "published" materials?

Are there any shared ideas/lessons or parallels here? Or is it a stretch to even try to connect the two?