| |
|
home | board | compass
| prayer | eCard |
10/21/2003 Entry: "Making links"
Speaking of Bene Diction, I've already mentioned the fascinating project on blog accountability, demographics, blog types, that kind of stuff.I'm fascinated by the way that people choose what to put on their "blogroll", that list of other blogs in a column on the side of the screen. Some people seem to make it a "list of every blog I've looked at that I hought was half decent". Some claim it as a some kind of magnificent endorsement. Others link only the sites they read. i haven't done any research, but my instinct is that via the blogrolls, blogs are arranged in "clusters". the clusters have points of contact, even overlap, but broadly speaking a link on the blogroll seems to be an indication of "one of us". I might bewrong, of course. But if I'm right, i wonder how healthy that is - especially among the "God blogs".
More interesting still are how people react to discovering that they've been blogrolled. Links mean visitors (assuming the linking site has any!) but more importantly they are the means of the exchange of ideas and conversation. And that's what blogging is about, or at least that's how it seems to me. So the usual reaction to discovering a new link, especially a "permanent" one on a blogroll is pleasure. I mean, even if you don't "do it for the numbers", it's still better to have visitors than not.Just occasionally though, you hear of someone who is asking to be taken off a blogroll, perhaps because they don't approve of the linking site or its owner. I find that very strange. as far as I know, there is no contamination that can be transmitted via a link. There are no "Blogually Transmitted Diseases" that I'm aware of. So I have to admit that I find such requests hard to understand.
I'm not sure how I'd react if someone were to ask to be taken off my little blogroll. It has never happened. But my first instinct would be, "It's my blogroll, and I decide who's on it." I certainly can't imagine ever asking to be taken off someone elses list, whatever the site. A link from a site doesn't mean I approve of them. It means they think there's something in this direction that's worth looking at, even if it's just to make fun of me. If we start having to approve of those who link to us, there probably wouldn't be much left of the "blogosphere" - just isolated sites shouting at one another from the perfection of their solitude.
And that doesn't sound like very much fun.
Replies:
How flattering, Bene, for you to suggest my labels carry such weight! I agree with myself, with one of the reasons being what Pieter said. I think there are times that blogging about blogging is called for and it's interesting (this post being a prime example). But blogs that focus solely on blogs just don't interest me, at all. That's not a slam or a criticism of those type of web sites. I'm sure plenty of people like them, it's just that I don't. It doesn't spark my curiosity (aside from one's like Richard's here), and like incest, it doesn't broaden the idea/blog (gene) pool. Like I said, though, that's just my own opinion and I'm sure others like metablogs.
Posted by Joshua Claybourn @ 10/24/2003 06:16 AM CST
Thanks for the advice Bene, I'll check out the link.
Posted by saint @ 10/23/2003 10:32 AM CST
In relation to your earlier comment, I find the "blog neighbourhood" function on www.blogstreet.com really interesting. It takes account of the fact that we create little virtual neighbourhoods of people that we connect with.
Posted by dan @ 10/23/2003 02:16 AM CST
Saint:
People that study this stuff say a blogroll that is kept to 50 and under is wise. I think like a journalist, and try to avoid too much stimulus and distraction.Do what is best for you.I did a post about that blogroll length study once. Hit my blogs search section if you are interested.
This latest delinking is really sad. It's pretty rare and tends to occur among people that embrace the politics of blogging rather than the spirit of it.
Like Rachel and Richard said, it's your blog, your roll.:^)
Posted by Bene Diction @ 10/22/2003 11:24 PM CST
Hmm, I actually have a long list of blogs I regularly read...from the simple to sublime. Not all of them are publicly displayed on my blog (haven't worked out how to put my blogroll on without manually keying every link into my template). But after reading this and Bene's post I wonder whether I should keep them all anonymous.
Posted by saint @ 10/22/2003 10:16 PM CST
I try and keep my blog roll small (on purpose) to just the ones that I always keep up with. I read lots of others of course, but my blog roll is there for me primarily :)
Your term "Blogually Transmitted Diseases" is funny :) People would assume a blogroll link (which, unlike a post link) has a more permanent position on your blog, therefore assume that an association exists (therefore think that who we associate with reflects on us)...
I haven't gone through the de-linking process (on either side) but have seen others go through it and it doesn't look like fun.
Posted by Rachel C @ 10/22/2003 10:13 PM CST
Jordon:
The latest delinking kerfuffle that got some of us pondering this issue is at Deux ego.All male. All about homosexuality again.And (quelle surprise) it's not the Christian blogger exercising dignity and grace. Blog on!
Posted by Bene Diction @ 10/22/2003 09:30 PM CST
I remember my first conversation I had about the blogroll and it was because I accidently delinked someone (lost my entire blogroll while editing and forgot to add someone). Clay Skirkly recently said that many blogs are not magazines but rather dinner parties, being delinked is kind of like having an invitation rescinded.
Posted by Jordon Cooper @ 10/22/2003 08:39 PM CST
Ok. thanks for explaining Pieter. Blog on!
Posted by Bene Diction @ 10/22/2003 05:53 PM CST
I agree with Josh, Bene...I can't say his term led me to despise meta blogging. I happen to think meta blogging is of very little value...writing about ideas is both fascinating and useful, and meta blogging is not about ideas...at least, not about ideas that are of any consequence.
Posted by Pieter Friedrich @ 10/22/2003 05:29 PM CST
Peiter:
Josh Claybourn thinks blogging about blogging is 'incestuous'.Did his use of a sexual term lead you to 'despise' meta blogging?
Posted by Bene Diction @ 10/22/2003 04:36 PM CST
"Despise" seems like a very strong word for a fairly harmless activity Pieter. Why the strong reaction.
Have you asked to be taken off someone's blogroll then? ;o)
Posted by Richard @ 10/22/2003 07:32 AM CST
Richard: Please remove me from... Oh forget it. That was too obvious!
Posted by Mike @ 10/22/2003 07:01 AM CST
I despise metablogging, but I may engage in some of it on my blog tonight re this issue.
Remember...Michael offered to remove me from his blogroll. I didn't ask him...I merely took him up on his offer.
Posted by Pieter Friedrich @ 10/22/2003 12:18 AM CST
You're a scholar and a gentleman!
Posted by Richard @ 10/21/2003 11:50 PM CST
Hey Richard...this is way off topic, but since I couldn't find an email address, I guess here is as good a place as any...
I just wanted you to know that I finally got around to adding your site to my blogroll, and gave you (and some others) a little welcome post. I really enjoy your blog, keep up the good work.
God bless!
Posted by Jonathan @ 10/21/2003 11:21 PM CST
