The Politburo Diktat

Hang em high and kick em low. That's my motto.

I'm not looking for ways to disagree with you. But I don't see the problem. As long as you get the link, what's the problem?

As a small to middling blogger (emphasis on the small), I can see any number of reasons to list blogs like that. Perhaps the other blogs offer a different take on my post, agree with it or are violently opposed. Listing them is a courtesy to the reader.

I understand it may seem like small blogs are piggybacking on the more well known ones, but it remains an advertisment for the listed blogs, rather than a self advertisment.

The worst case I can imagine is that the unwary reader may think there is some connection between the blogger and the blogs listed.

Alex,

There are various ways of doing it. A lengthy list of short blog names at the bottom of a post from a small blogger is the functional equivalent of a one-side TB.

Anyway, since Patterico has also filed a brief on this matter in this thread my lawyer tells me it's gonna cost too much to mount a defense. Therefore, I'm just gonna plead "nolo contendre" to being an intolerant twit.

You "small to middling bloggers" better not get too uppity thar. We'll git ye.

Hi Stephen,

I'm afraid I can't find the example you mentioned. I'll keep trying because now I'm curious; however, I can probably imagine what he did. I can also imagine how that would be gauling (in no small part because it's so transparent a ploy).

Best wishes, Alex

I hope the roundups that Joe Gandelman does on topics doesn't fall under your definition of the "here's who's commenting" ploy.

I know Joe works pretty hard on the roundups and tries to comment on each post he links to. Many use Joe's roundups to find other commentaries on topics of current interest.

Just wondering what you thought.

Jack,

Definitely not. Add "arrogant" and "elistist" to "intolerant" if you like, but when established blogs do thoughtful, if extensive, roundups to lots of other blogs (typically including small ones), that's a different deal.

Uh, oh. The Commissar has found out that I'm a lawyer. Here come the lawyer jokes.

Will it get worse or better once he realizes I'm a prosecutor?

As the small blogger who caused you the heartache, I respectfully request that you delete the trackback I sent to this post.

I just happened to enjoy the "BYOB" line. I certainly didn't mean to cause anyone acid reflux disease.

Hopefully my comments aren't being counted here, but I filed the earlier comment from a Treo and wanted to be especially brief. I'd like to weigh in on the actual issue at a little more length. (*This* is the brief. The earlier comment was my notice of motion.)

My perception of the rudeness people feel in an unlinked trackback is that people are simply trying to get attention without even giving a link. I understand trying to get attention; we've all been there. But it appears to be standard Internet etiquette to require the link, and that makes sense.

A bare link with no commentary is not as good as a link with commentary. But it still has some value; people might read your post, it's another link for the Ecosystem, etc. And it furthers the discussion, because presumably the other blogger who linked your post has discussed the same issue as you, even if he/she didn't comment directly on your take.

So my theory is, if people really want to take the time to collect a bunch of links of other commentary, they've earned the trackback.

Dated this 15th day of June, 2005, at Los Angeles, California.

Respectfully submitted,

Patterico (Esq.)

Oh, geez, this is going the wrong way.

Preston is NOT the guilty party. Neither is Joe Gandelman, nor Jack. Nor Rusty. Nor any of my blogger buddies, nor even my blogger-enemies.

Let's try this: Have you been sending mass emails to long lists of established bloggers recently? Have you been doing the type of posts described, with the lengthy lists of 'mini-links' at the bottom?

If not, it isn't you.

I think I see what you mean, re: the link you posted over at my place.

Whew... that's better.

Luckily enough a big blogger educated me early on about proper linkage/trackback ettiquite, so I was able to avoid the error, but I try to cut others a little slack the first time they do it.

After that... it's asswhoopin' time! (As they say down here in the sticks)

So what's the recourse to this? I don't want to delete them, but it is irritating... And rude, personally.

Recourse?

That depends. If I'm in a good mood, and think the guy deserves a break, I send a friendly advisory email. If I'm cranky, I just delete it. If I'm lazy, I do nothing.

I've tried, but I can never get the damn trackbacks to work right.

I just post the regular link if I reference another blog. Being a small to middlin' blog, I can't imagine this upsets anyone- am I breaking a sacred etiquette here or something?

Ok, I don't know if I'm a 'small blogger' still, but I usually list other blogs at the bottom of a newsie post for two reasons.

A) Courtesy: Back when I was a small blogger I always got way excited for ANY LINK. I remember the first time a certain Communist themed schticky blog linked me and I was happy as hell. So, if it's a 'newsie' type item I try to link pretty much everyone who's on the topic.

B) Google: At least some part of the Google algorythm for page rankings is related to incoming links. By listing blogs also on the story you are increasing your chances for RESIDUAL (not immediate) hits.

Tman,

No, the basic rule is "if you post a link," you're fine.

TB's can be confusing until you figure them out. I've done a couple posts on them, which you can search for. Others have too.

There are a few pieces that you need to keep straight. There is your URL. There is the URL of the post you're linking to. There is the URL that you send the TB to (at the other guy). And, there is the URL where the other guy DISPLAYS trackbacks received.

You might react with "ack. more than I need to know."

But once you understand the purpose of those four URLs, then you can figure out which parts your software is doing automatically, and you can also understand when a glitch occcurs.

Rusty,

LOL, you are hardly a small blog. My attitude may be elitist, but when The Jawa Report lists a bunch of blogs (most of which are smaller than you), you are hardly scrounging for traffic or trying to promote yourself.

Some guy with 25 hits a day does the same thing, but mini-links a bunch of uber-bloggers, it suggests a different purpose. (While also sending out mass email blegs.)

I'm feeling cranky. I think I'll delete some. The random trackbacks with no mention at all, I used to just send one to them too, to give them a hint. But I'm sick of being nice. Grrr. Which is kind of ridiculous cuz I'm not even that big.

The smaller dudes have it stacked against them trying to break into this blogging game. Can't blame them for trying to get noticed. But I concur on the one-way-trackback nonsense.

SayUncle,

Depends what you mean by "break in." If you mean to become a A-List blogger like Malkin, or Wonkette, or Capt Ed (all of whom are fairly new), yeah the odds are tough.

To become a B-List blogger (say 1000 hits per day, Top 200 in Ecosystem), anyone who works at it can get there.

Preston, you vile bastard, I knew it was you.

"anyone who works at it can get there"

Dunno about that, there's a lot of bloggers out there and, while getting traffic occurs over time, getting links to be in the top 200 out of several million is going to be tough.

Vince, maybe you and I should take it outside. (And not drag a respectable blog down with us and our feudin')

That's silly. If they want trackbacks, all they have to do is read the bigger blog, find something interesting in it, quote it properly, link to it, and maybe comment on it so the big blog knows whether or not they're being used. Listing a bunch of blogs for cheap trackbacks is just cheap, and you're never going to be big if you're cheap. If you have something interesting to say and stick to a regular schedule that people know will provide a reason for them to visit, they'll come.

This one girl trackbacks to me every once in a while, she uses my title as hers, quotes a small paragraph then says "read more here" without even naming me. It's irritating as hell, but I let it go because at least she's quoting me, but I still can only assume she keeps quoting me because she agrees with me.

I find this debate amusing.

If you get the link...you get the link. Period. Google and the Ecosystem could care less where the link is--just as long as it's there and someone is clicking.

Enjoy the fact that you're a big enough blog to get "used" in such a way.

OK, I'm not a blogger and I'm not interested in trackback etiquette.

What I can't stand is when I'm viewing a page from a blogger I like and he uses a word like "Khorosho." Then I have to spend ten minutes reading about the Russian language and A Clockwork Orange and Anthony Burgess just to get this erudite reference and feel like I'm not a total dork.

F*ck you, Commissar.

On the other hand, I learned something.

Guess that's why I come here.

I'm one who thoughtlessly burned you with a bad trackback once upon a time. You "calling me" on it certainly woke me up to the issue. You've been kind to me since, so I guess I was forgiven!

There is hope for these dorks. Don't lose all your patience.

When someone sends a trackback to you, they get a short mention after the main body of your post.

The 'other comments' list means that they provide you with an equivalent prominence to what the trackback gets them- unless you're going to start editing trackbacks into your posts, your 'policy' is bordering on hypocrisy.