Follow us @WheatnTweet!
Link Baiting
By: Stephen MarshI was discussing a recent case of link baiting that occurred, and someone said: I would love if you or anyone could find a way to incorporate what you had said previously into a post:
“What first got my attention about it all was his complaining about not having engaged W&T among other blogs, in his discussion. That was fine, but, why should I be reading him and what he writes? What call does he have from his involvement with me that would call for me to be involved with him or to even notice him when he writes, did he even have a link back rather than just the name of our blog?
Do I not have enough going on in my life? Does he comment regularly on my personal blog? (e.g. at a thread like http://ethesis.blogspot.com/2012/05/rachels-talk-today-in-church.html ). Is he a regular commenter at W&T that I’ve happened to miss? Is his writing otherwise supernal and compelling?”
Because these bring up really good point. The person you are discussing doesn’t comment at W&T. There’s nothing really special about his writing, as far as I can tell. We have better things to do. It’s really just link-baiting the blogs he mentioned (successful link-baiting, as it appears from seeing the bloggers who have responded to him, but link-baiting nevertheless).
So, how should we, at W&T, respond to link baiting? In general, how much does someone deserve a response who is outside of our community, never responds to our posts or comments here and who does not visit our personal blogs? What do you think is the right response to link baiting?
For those who are curious: http://www.problogger.net/archives/2006/09/19/an-introduction-to-linkbaiting/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_bait
What would I have posted on if I had not been discussing link baiting? Well, in the early 1980s the text of the second endowment was available in the reserve collection at the BYU library. In connection with that, there has been a lot of discussion about the second comforter, the Holy Spirit of Promise and what it means to have your calling and election made sure. By next week that will no longer be topical (things in the bloggernacle age fast), but I was thinking of discussing those. What do you think I should have written about instead?
baiting your link is an abuse of celestial powers of link procreation. it is an abhorrence and abomination.
Like this comment?
3
“link procreation” is a term I’m going to have to remember.
One thing that I think is interesting is that in some sense, linking is truly a real currency of blogging and the internet. It just seems so natural that when another blogger writes about a topic that I later want to write about, that I’ll weave their post in as is appropriate to my post, and I’ll link them for proper attributions.
But this post brings up a really good point (and that may or may not be because I have been quoted in this post >_>): what if someone is trying to make people respond to them, but they don’t actually engage with the communities that they are baiting? Should we still give them a mention by name or even link to them?
Like this comment?
2
In other words, should a blog promote another blog? I suppose if there’s a good fit to the content or point of view, it makes sense, but I agree with you Stephen; I’m more likely to link to a blog I regularly read (or to a reader who regularly reads my blog).
Like this comment?
3
Even worse, from a bloggers ethics viewpoint (worse than his inferring that I am either an apostate a coward or mentally inadequate) is that he engaged in link baiting by naming us without providing a link to the site.
That way he could bait, but not provide a link to go with it. Which is one of the reasons that unlike others who have discussed the behavior I did not link to his bait.
And am discussing the behavior in general rather than this particular baiter in specific.
Like this comment?
4
Andrew, thanks for confirming that I was actually quoting someone real rather than engaging in a literary device. The real question is whether or not
A — a person has a right to even be noticed or to accuse others of cowardice and worse for not engaging his discussion when he is not a participant in the community.
B — whether or not you should link to link baiters, especially the ones who bait without linking to you.
C — how do you deal with those who violate the social contract.
D — how the heck did he expect me to notice him so I would know that I was being cowardly?
Not as if I am not busy.
Anyway, that pretty much covers the specifics and the general.
Like this comment?
3
Bah!
R**ph! We are giving him too much play! I link to people all the time who write interesting things and whom my readers might enjoy also reading. The internet is the ultimate Y-Gen sharing environment – helping one another, building community, enlarging the borders of those communities. When someone starts dripping poison in the communal water supply, they need barred from it. I detest being baited. I refuse to acknowledge people who whine. When my children whined I said, “AAAAAHHHH! I can’t hear you when your voice icepicks my skull.”
These are all the things I think of before I think of giving this grievance any more airtime: an orphaned generation in Africa, the worth or danger of Wikileaks, my granddaughters, what really happened to JFK, health benefits of chocolate, my granddaughters, graduations, Kolob, corn on the cob, bobbing for apples, the amazing skills of Indian weavers and how much I want a spangled hijab, my granddaughters, what it would be like to meet Brigham Young, landscaping a hillside that used to be a riverbed, how much I like my friends, cheesecake, the mechanics of fireworks, and sometimes, my granddaughters.
AAAAAAHHHH!
Like this comment?
2
Maybe we should just consign them to Outer Blogness. No. Wait, that would be link baiting. :D
Like this comment?
1
Surely link baiting is a principle of the gospel. After all, are we not to do all we can to link all of mankind into an unbroken chain back to Adam?
Like this comment?
1