Why can’t we all just link to the source?
I was recently reading an article on Wired about blogs and linking called Parasitology of Blogging.
The premise of the article was that the "A list" bloggers just aggregate what all the "Z list" bloggers are doing. This makes sense to me as a blog such as BoingBoing is nothing more than a big linkback site. The only original content on the site is when an editor comments on a page they are linking to.
Interestingly enough I encountered an article today about the Electrolux NFridge onTechzi that listed another blog as it's source. The source blog Technabob listed another blog as it's source! When I followed the source link to Trendsnow I hit a language barrier. I also did not see another link that could have been a source link.
This got me to thinking. Why did Techzi link to Technabob instead of Technabob's source?
If you were to do some research using Google you wouldn't link to your Google search, would you? So why, in the world of blogging, would you provide a source link to someone who was not the true source of the story?
This is not the first time I have encountered a situation where a blogger links to a source blog who is not the real source of the story. Is it just laziness? Is it because the blogger wants a trackback from the more popular site?
What do you think?
Interesting point of view, Steve. In my mind, I would probably do that exact same thing…oddly enough. Credit the blog that “found it first” so to speak, but I’d most certainly credit the original source. In fact, now that I think about it, my link to the secondary blog might include an anchor that read something like “here’s what so&so said about this on his/her blog”. I’m still new to the whole bloggers etiquette thing. I think I’ve got it down pretty good, but I’m sure there are things I need to work on.
As you get more and more into blogging, and the content on your site increases, you will find that you become more interested in providing quality links to your readers.
The more source links you can provide for your readers the better your blog will be.
You think? Sometimes I think that too many links can be somewhat overwhelming. Don’t you reckon?
Too many links is only a problem if you are simply linking for linkings sake. Providing one link to the original source and one to the site where you learned about it should be enough.
If something is very popular then you can provide links to what others are saying about it.
Just wanted to say I’m glad you fixed your comments. It wouldn’t let me comment the other day.
Like the new look. Hope it works out for you.
Why didn’t you tell me that yesterday???
Heh… I told Steve via MyBlogLog. ;) Brain’s Threaded Comments caused more problems than expected, I guess. :)
The contact link wasn’t linked to anywhere (hell none of the top links were linked to anywhere) so I figure you’d notice sooner or later. ;)
What about the MyBlogLog community? You could have left me a message on there!
I’m not that good with the MyBlogLog just yet!
Since my blog is one of the ones in your example, I’ll explain what I do…
As is the case with most media, only a very small percentage of news is truly original (a big “scoop”). As such, I try to aggregate interesting information about tech products and add something to the story when I can. Whether it’s connecting multiple stories, adding humor or just editorial flourish, that’s what I try to do. When the news isn’t sourced from a press release or word of mouth, it’ll often be sourced from another website or blog. In that case, I do my best to both link to the product manufacturer’s website in the article itself, then provide [via] links to any source site. If my direct source site sourced it somewhere else, I’ll offer “double” via link back to the originating source if I can find it (i.e. [via X via Y]).
Do you guys agree that this is a good practice, or do you think that we should only link to the earliest source we can find our way to?
P.S. If you think about conventional media, like your evening news, they don’t even bother crediting their sources, so at least blogging offers that advantage.
I see no problem with aggregating interesting information and I have no problem with any of the blogs referenced in this post.
I also like the double link back idea. Citing from where an item originated and from where you learned about it helps the reader discover new web sites that may appeal to them.
The more source links you can provide the better. I just find it strange when I see people referencing a “middle man” site rather than a source site.
I also find it annoying when I do research on a story and have too dig through multiple “source” links to find the actual source of a story. Perhaps this is something those of who spend a lot of time on Digg have picked up?
Techzi removed their post so that link is now dead.
We didn’t… I think we had some server errors. :S I’ll have to ask Nate. But my end, I can still see it. Anyone else having any problems? Anyhow, it’s just sheer laziness on my part. ;) Plus the fact that Paul deserves credit, and I found it through him. :D
I still can’t get to it by following the link in this article. Was the post slug changed or has the article been marked private?
Well… according to the article - maybe webmasters are a bit more careful of the links the give and get. I would really agree to that - sticking to your own niche and linking with similar sites - is an obvious thing. I imagine a fishing site linking with furniture sales or some other totally unrelated sites….