Not linking starts a conversation

Let’s see, I don’t link to Fred Wilson’s blog, but Fred notices anyway. Diane Ensey, over on A List Review, says me and Gillmor are keeping blogs for the elite. I almost didn’t link to Diane. I only don’t link to my very favorite blogs. So, I’m keeping Diane out of the elite just by linking to her. :-)

No, I think we both noticed that there are lots of ways to draw attention to someone. Here, try this: Matt Mullenweg is the #1 Matt in the world (according to Google). I won’t link to him. He’s already part of the elite — and is one of my most favorite blogs. How do I know that? Cause he wrote on his blog that he got invited to a wedding via Facebook. Speaking of which, there’s a little “I love WordPress” icon contest underway.

Oh, and Shelley Powers? I ain’t linking to her either. She’s part of the blog elite too. Is the #1 Shelley Powers on Google.

And Jory Des Jardins? Hell no. I ain’t linking to her either. She already runs the world. How do I know that? She’s the #1 Jory. 

Whos’ the #1 Joel? Guess. He’s one of my favorite blogs too. I don’t even need to use his last name. You’ll still find him. I loved his post the other day where he asked “does your programming language do this?”

When I say “Doc.” You know who I’m talking about, right? Well, he’s #2 on Google for that word. His post today was about the Religious broadcasters creativity in getting onto his Sirius radio.

And Dave Winer today notices I’m going on a road trip. You can find him on Google too.

Damn elites. :-)

Seriously? I’m not gonna stop linking. I actually don’t agree with Gillmor either. But, I do appreciate that he tries to do something different which gets a conversation to start. If we were all the same this world would be so damn boring.

Comments

  1. I don’t think “the Religious broadcasters interfering with his Sirius radio” is an accurate characterization of Doc’s post. He wrote about solving a mystery, and commended the religious broadcasters for their resourcefulness. The way you put it implies that Doc was mad at them.

  2. I don’t think “the Religious broadcasters interfering with his Sirius radio” is an accurate characterization of Doc’s post. He wrote about solving a mystery, and commended the religious broadcasters for their resourcefulness. The way you put it implies that Doc was mad at them.

  3. I don’t think “the Religious broadcasters interfering with his Sirius radio” is an accurate characterization of Doc’s post. He wrote about solving a mystery, and commended the religious broadcasters for their resourcefulness. The way you put it implies that Doc was mad at them.

  4. Without links a blog post isn’t much different than a newspaper or magazine article. It may be good information, but there’s no added value. Go figure the rest out on your own.

    Just because many of your readers know who/what you are refering to, why make them and everyone else work to find your references?

  5. Without links a blog post isn’t much different than a newspaper or magazine article. It may be good information, but there’s no added value. Go figure the rest out on your own.

    Just because many of your readers know who/what you are refering to, why make them and everyone else work to find your references?

  6. Without links a blog post isn’t much different than a newspaper or magazine article. It may be good information, but there’s no added value. Go figure the rest out on your own.

    Just because many of your readers know who/what you are refering to, why make them and everyone else work to find your references?

  7. Surely the conversation was started by other people linking and the Google ranking of the various people you cite presumably is due to linking that happened in the past? I’m not technically knowledgeable enough to know this, but if linking to these people now ceased, would they not eventually fall down the google ranking to be replaced by someone who did receives links.

  8. Surely the conversation was started by other people linking and the Google ranking of the various people you cite presumably is due to linking that happened in the past? I’m not technically knowledgeable enough to know this, but if linking to these people now ceased, would they not eventually fall down the google ranking to be replaced by someone who did receives links.

  9. Surely the conversation was started by other people linking and the Google ranking of the various people you cite presumably is due to linking that happened in the past? I’m not technically knowledgeable enough to know this, but if linking to these people now ceased, would they not eventually fall down the google ranking to be replaced by someone who did receives links.

  10. I do linking in my blog to make it easier on people to get to the source that I’m talking about. As Diane Ensey wrote links are one of the features that makes the Internet so cool.

    As a side bar, I still don’t like the fact that when I search “Scoble” on Google it still goes to the old blog.

  11. I do linking in my blog to make it easier on people to get to the source that I’m talking about. As Diane Ensey wrote links are one of the features that makes the Internet so cool.

    As a side bar, I still don’t like the fact that when I search “Scoble” on Google it still goes to the old blog.

  12. I do linking in my blog to make it easier on people to get to the source that I’m talking about. As Diane Ensey wrote links are one of the features that makes the Internet so cool.

    As a side bar, I still don’t like the fact that when I search “Scoble” on Google it still goes to the old blog.

  13. Actually, that’s not how Google works at all.

    Look for “Scoble” for instance. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-28,GGLJ:en&q=Scoble

    Note that my old blog is still higher than my new blog. Despite the fact that I haven’t published anything to my old blog since November last year.

    Google can’t distinguish between old and new links very well. So, if you’re already #1 you’ll probably stay there unless someone else gets dramatically more popular.

    If we wanted the Web to be LESS elite you’d encourage me NOT to link to things that are already #1.

  14. Actually, that’s not how Google works at all.

    Look for “Scoble” for instance. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-28,GGLJ:en&q=Scoble

    Note that my old blog is still higher than my new blog. Despite the fact that I haven’t published anything to my old blog since November last year.

    Google can’t distinguish between old and new links very well. So, if you’re already #1 you’ll probably stay there unless someone else gets dramatically more popular.

    If we wanted the Web to be LESS elite you’d encourage me NOT to link to things that are already #1.

  15. Actually, that’s not how Google works at all.

    Look for “Scoble” for instance. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-28,GGLJ:en&q=Scoble

    Note that my old blog is still higher than my new blog. Despite the fact that I haven’t published anything to my old blog since November last year.

    Google can’t distinguish between old and new links very well. So, if you’re already #1 you’ll probably stay there unless someone else gets dramatically more popular.

    If we wanted the Web to be LESS elite you’d encourage me NOT to link to things that are already #1.

  16. So. It seems you are purposely not linking because you think that these particular names (and their associated URLs) are obviously and undoubtedly part of the social fabric of every one of your readers — and if they aren’t, we should all go out and Google them so that now these people are fixed in our minds as the #1 so-and-so?

    Right.

    Well, it’s your blog. Do what you wish – however, perhaps to help us folks who aren’t that interested in memorizing the ABC’s of blog-stardom, you could organize your blogroll such that when you refer to “Matt”, I can go there and find a link to one and only one Matt, and click on it? Otherwise, how do I know that your favorite Matt isn’t #2 on the list — or must we assume that anyone you name as your favorite is always #1?

    I understand that you might refer to somebody a million times, and you get tired of making a link every time — still, just a bit of context for the rest of us would be appreciated. Saying we all should ‘just know’ is lame.

  17. So. It seems you are purposely not linking because you think that these particular names (and their associated URLs) are obviously and undoubtedly part of the social fabric of every one of your readers — and if they aren’t, we should all go out and Google them so that now these people are fixed in our minds as the #1 so-and-so?

    Right.

    Well, it’s your blog. Do what you wish – however, perhaps to help us folks who aren’t that interested in memorizing the ABC’s of blog-stardom, you could organize your blogroll such that when you refer to “Matt”, I can go there and find a link to one and only one Matt, and click on it? Otherwise, how do I know that your favorite Matt isn’t #2 on the list — or must we assume that anyone you name as your favorite is always #1?

    I understand that you might refer to somebody a million times, and you get tired of making a link every time — still, just a bit of context for the rest of us would be appreciated. Saying we all should ‘just know’ is lame.

  18. So. It seems you are purposely not linking because you think that these particular names (and their associated URLs) are obviously and undoubtedly part of the social fabric of every one of your readers — and if they aren’t, we should all go out and Google them so that now these people are fixed in our minds as the #1 so-and-so?

    Right.

    Well, it’s your blog. Do what you wish – however, perhaps to help us folks who aren’t that interested in memorizing the ABC’s of blog-stardom, you could organize your blogroll such that when you refer to “Matt”, I can go there and find a link to one and only one Matt, and click on it? Otherwise, how do I know that your favorite Matt isn’t #2 on the list — or must we assume that anyone you name as your favorite is always #1?

    I understand that you might refer to somebody a million times, and you get tired of making a link every time — still, just a bit of context for the rest of us would be appreciated. Saying we all should ‘just know’ is lame.

  19. Ahh, poop Robert. The whole argument that the Web is “elite” is well, to be honest, stupid. If being elite means you are working on your computer 14 hours a day and reading like 100 feeds a day and responding to 100 emails a day and “linking” to this post and that post, then yea, it is elite.

    I think the WEB is a great social equalizer. You work hard and post content that people want to read and comment on then you are going to rise to the top of the search results. If you write a blog about crap that no one wants to read, then the search engines will find you, but your friends and associates will have to know how to dig a little deeper.

    So, if my vote means anything, I say LINK, LINK, LINK away. But then again, I am a little lazy in the fact that I don’t want to hit the search engine to find a reference you made when you didn’t link.

  20. Ahh, poop Robert. The whole argument that the Web is “elite” is well, to be honest, stupid. If being elite means you are working on your computer 14 hours a day and reading like 100 feeds a day and responding to 100 emails a day and “linking” to this post and that post, then yea, it is elite.

    I think the WEB is a great social equalizer. You work hard and post content that people want to read and comment on then you are going to rise to the top of the search results. If you write a blog about crap that no one wants to read, then the search engines will find you, but your friends and associates will have to know how to dig a little deeper.

    So, if my vote means anything, I say LINK, LINK, LINK away. But then again, I am a little lazy in the fact that I don’t want to hit the search engine to find a reference you made when you didn’t link.

  21. Ahh, poop Robert. The whole argument that the Web is “elite” is well, to be honest, stupid. If being elite means you are working on your computer 14 hours a day and reading like 100 feeds a day and responding to 100 emails a day and “linking” to this post and that post, then yea, it is elite.

    I think the WEB is a great social equalizer. You work hard and post content that people want to read and comment on then you are going to rise to the top of the search results. If you write a blog about crap that no one wants to read, then the search engines will find you, but your friends and associates will have to know how to dig a little deeper.

    So, if my vote means anything, I say LINK, LINK, LINK away. But then again, I am a little lazy in the fact that I don’t want to hit the search engine to find a reference you made when you didn’t link.

  22. “What does this give you? Being noticed? ”

    Comment by James M. — August 3, 2006 @ 9:27 am

    “James: it gets guys like you to comment.”

    Comment by Robert Scoble — August 3, 2006 @ 9:35 am

    Yep…the “little people”.

    Booger

  23. “What does this give you? Being noticed? ”

    Comment by James M. — August 3, 2006 @ 9:27 am

    “James: it gets guys like you to comment.”

    Comment by Robert Scoble — August 3, 2006 @ 9:35 am

    Yep…the “little people”.

    Booger

  24. “What does this give you? Being noticed? ”

    Comment by James M. — August 3, 2006 @ 9:27 am

    “James: it gets guys like you to comment.”

    Comment by Robert Scoble — August 3, 2006 @ 9:35 am

    Yep…the “little people”.

    Booger

  25. Alfred,
    You are number 1 on Google! You have arrived my friend. Congratulations!

    But I not too sure about you having so many BLOGS. Which one do I visit? Where do I really learn about you?

    If Robert had two BLOGS I don’t know what I’d do – go crazy I guess.

    I really haven’t read a good discussion about single point of BLOGGING vs multiple vector BLOGGING. What do you think Robert?

    Anyway, congrats to Alfred. He must be doing something right!

  26. Alfred,
    You are number 1 on Google! You have arrived my friend. Congratulations!

    But I not too sure about you having so many BLOGS. Which one do I visit? Where do I really learn about you?

    If Robert had two BLOGS I don’t know what I’d do – go crazy I guess.

    I really haven’t read a good discussion about single point of BLOGGING vs multiple vector BLOGGING. What do you think Robert?

    Anyway, congrats to Alfred. He must be doing something right!

  27. Alfred,
    You are number 1 on Google! You have arrived my friend. Congratulations!

    But I not too sure about you having so many BLOGS. Which one do I visit? Where do I really learn about you?

    If Robert had two BLOGS I don’t know what I’d do – go crazy I guess.

    I really haven’t read a good discussion about single point of BLOGGING vs multiple vector BLOGGING. What do you think Robert?

    Anyway, congrats to Alfred. He must be doing something right!

  28. I do appreciate what you said about “gestures” though Robert – I actually didn’t stress that in my post at all. And I used the word “Elite” in the title to be provocative, but I am seriously worried about making blogs too hard to use. The easier to use, the more mainstream they will go, which is good for everyone, right?

    BTW – on a funny note, I forgot to link to Steve’s blog in my post and a commentor called me on it, saying he couldn’t find Steve’s blog by typing “Gillmor blog” on Google. So event the elite need linking for some.

  29. I do appreciate what you said about “gestures” though Robert – I actually didn’t stress that in my post at all. And I used the word “Elite” in the title to be provocative, but I am seriously worried about making blogs too hard to use. The easier to use, the more mainstream they will go, which is good for everyone, right?

    BTW – on a funny note, I forgot to link to Steve’s blog in my post and a commentor called me on it, saying he couldn’t find Steve’s blog by typing “Gillmor blog” on Google. So event the elite need linking for some.

  30. I do appreciate what you said about “gestures” though Robert – I actually didn’t stress that in my post at all. And I used the word “Elite” in the title to be provocative, but I am seriously worried about making blogs too hard to use. The easier to use, the more mainstream they will go, which is good for everyone, right?

    BTW – on a funny note, I forgot to link to Steve’s blog in my post and a commentor called me on it, saying he couldn’t find Steve’s blog by typing “Gillmor blog” on Google. So event the elite need linking for some.

  31. Sorry Robert but I don’t agree that if you are no 1 on your name then you count as blogging elite. I am the No 1 Sarah Blow (& no 19th Sarah on Google with safe search on)and am even above all the p*rn sites but I don’t count that as being an elite. It is more than just that… it is an entire presence and a persona. Something that very few have.

    You captured it by saying the bit about Doc… everyone knows who he is and it has nothing to do with his google rating… It has to do with web presence which is about talking about the people and in some cases linking to them. Fair play you don’t need to link to Doc… but those who are not so well known it does help people discover them.

    BTW glad you & Maryam had fun at Blog Her!

  32. Sorry Robert but I don’t agree that if you are no 1 on your name then you count as blogging elite. I am the No 1 Sarah Blow (& no 19th Sarah on Google with safe search on)and am even above all the p*rn sites but I don’t count that as being an elite. It is more than just that… it is an entire presence and a persona. Something that very few have.

    You captured it by saying the bit about Doc… everyone knows who he is and it has nothing to do with his google rating… It has to do with web presence which is about talking about the people and in some cases linking to them. Fair play you don’t need to link to Doc… but those who are not so well known it does help people discover them.

    BTW glad you & Maryam had fun at Blog Her!

  33. Sorry Robert but I don’t agree that if you are no 1 on your name then you count as blogging elite. I am the No 1 Sarah Blow (& no 19th Sarah on Google with safe search on)and am even above all the p*rn sites but I don’t count that as being an elite. It is more than just that… it is an entire presence and a persona. Something that very few have.

    You captured it by saying the bit about Doc… everyone knows who he is and it has nothing to do with his google rating… It has to do with web presence which is about talking about the people and in some cases linking to them. Fair play you don’t need to link to Doc… but those who are not so well known it does help people discover them.

    BTW glad you & Maryam had fun at Blog Her!

  34. I’d dip my fingers in, but I find the whole point and counterpoint, itself but a pointless waste of time.

  35. I’d dip my fingers in, but I find the whole point and counterpoint, itself but a pointless waste of time.

  36. I’d dip my fingers in, but I find the whole point and counterpoint, itself but a pointless waste of time.

  37. I think your elitism point is an interesting one. Again I speak from no great knowledge but it seems to me that your top 100 status which means that your links are more “potent” than most is not your “fault” You earned it and had it bestowed on you.

    You can do your bit for “socialism” by linking to lesser known people you think merit attention but, as you ‘ve witnessed, people want the convenience of links so if you think a high-ranked blogger is making a point that’s worth spreading then I think you’re stuck with being “obliged”to provide the link.

    It would be great, as you imply, if ranking systems could distinguish between old and new links because that would be more meritocratic, but for the moment I think the most meritocratic system is that of linking to whomever we think is interesting to our “audience” or ourselves.

  38. I think your elitism point is an interesting one. Again I speak from no great knowledge but it seems to me that your top 100 status which means that your links are more “potent” than most is not your “fault” You earned it and had it bestowed on you.

    You can do your bit for “socialism” by linking to lesser known people you think merit attention but, as you ‘ve witnessed, people want the convenience of links so if you think a high-ranked blogger is making a point that’s worth spreading then I think you’re stuck with being “obliged”to provide the link.

    It would be great, as you imply, if ranking systems could distinguish between old and new links because that would be more meritocratic, but for the moment I think the most meritocratic system is that of linking to whomever we think is interesting to our “audience” or ourselves.

  39. I think your elitism point is an interesting one. Again I speak from no great knowledge but it seems to me that your top 100 status which means that your links are more “potent” than most is not your “fault” You earned it and had it bestowed on you.

    You can do your bit for “socialism” by linking to lesser known people you think merit attention but, as you ‘ve witnessed, people want the convenience of links so if you think a high-ranked blogger is making a point that’s worth spreading then I think you’re stuck with being “obliged”to provide the link.

    It would be great, as you imply, if ranking systems could distinguish between old and new links because that would be more meritocratic, but for the moment I think the most meritocratic system is that of linking to whomever we think is interesting to our “audience” or ourselves.

  40. Actually, searching on my full name returns the URL for the weblog I’m no longer updating. However, if you search on my first name, only, you can access some of my poetry, and even a horror story I wrote.

    It’s good. Really. It has monsters and everything.

    The poetry is kind of sucky, though.

  41. Actually, searching on my full name returns the URL for the weblog I’m no longer updating. However, if you search on my first name, only, you can access some of my poetry, and even a horror story I wrote.

    It’s good. Really. It has monsters and everything.

    The poetry is kind of sucky, though.

  42. Actually, searching on my full name returns the URL for the weblog I’m no longer updating. However, if you search on my first name, only, you can access some of my poetry, and even a horror story I wrote.

    It’s good. Really. It has monsters and everything.

    The poetry is kind of sucky, though.

  43. Robert,

    I noticed sometimes you dont hesitate to link to Maryam and Patrick`s sites ( and also to other sites you talk/refer about).

    Reading you regularly makes me realise you link whenever its required, that should do.

  44. Robert,

    I noticed sometimes you dont hesitate to link to Maryam and Patrick`s sites ( and also to other sites you talk/refer about).

    Reading you regularly makes me realise you link whenever its required, that should do.

  45. Robert,

    I noticed sometimes you dont hesitate to link to Maryam and Patrick`s sites ( and also to other sites you talk/refer about).

    Reading you regularly makes me realise you link whenever its required, that should do.

  46. I have commented about this on my blog. I would have linked to your post, but I thought: Nah, let’s just do some “gesture”, whatever it is. So, no trackbak, you’ll have to dig my post up (not hard at all, actually).

  47. I have commented about this on my blog. I would have linked to your post, but I thought: Nah, let’s just do some “gesture”, whatever it is. So, no trackbak, you’ll have to dig my post up (not hard at all, actually).

  48. I have commented about this on my blog. I would have linked to your post, but I thought: Nah, let’s just do some “gesture”, whatever it is. So, no trackbak, you’ll have to dig my post up (not hard at all, actually).