TechMeme doesn’t care if you link to IT

WinExtra makes an interesting point. He thought he could get listed on TechMeme just by linking to the top story there. That’s NOT how TechMeme works. TechMeme requires someone to link to YOU. And not just one “A lister” either. Multiple.

For instance, I’m in TechMeme and just cause I linked to WinExtra here doesn’t guarantee that WinExtra will get on TechMeme.

One thing that’s hurting WinExtra’s ability to get people to link to it? I can’t find a name on the site for the author. I generally don’t like linking to blogs that I don’t know who authors them.

Comments

  1. And you just explained why I often get little in the way of value from techmeme when I visit. If I wanted a list of “a” list web sites that link to each other over and over it already exists, it’s called the technorati 100, however it’s not web 2.0 format with headlines like techmeme.

  2. And you just explained why I often get little in the way of value from techmeme when I visit. If I wanted a list of “a” list web sites that link to each other over and over it already exists, it’s called the technorati 100, however it’s not web 2.0 format with headlines like techmeme.

  3. It’s not the Technorati 100. Why? Cause A-listers link to new stuff all the time.

    But, either way, you might like TailRank better then (TailRank watches a much bigger list of people, but you’ll also see noise get in there and I like TechMeme’s ranking of stories and layout better). Or, watch my Link Blog. I watch more than 440 blogs and put the best stuff up there.

    The point of these things is to give you a very quick overview — I do mine for busy employees who want to keep up on the top tech blogs, but don’t have time to read 440 feeds. These aren’t designed to give you a comprehensive look. Do a blog search on a topic if you want a comprehensive look.

  4. It’s not the Technorati 100. Why? Cause A-listers link to new stuff all the time.

    But, either way, you might like TailRank better then (TailRank watches a much bigger list of people, but you’ll also see noise get in there and I like TechMeme’s ranking of stories and layout better). Or, watch my Link Blog. I watch more than 440 blogs and put the best stuff up there.

    The point of these things is to give you a very quick overview — I do mine for busy employees who want to keep up on the top tech blogs, but don’t have time to read 440 feeds. These aren’t designed to give you a comprehensive look. Do a blog search on a topic if you want a comprehensive look.

  5. You put what YOU think is the best stuff up there in your link blog. And that’s fine. You have your own filter. Nothing wrong with that. But, as we have repeated discovered…”The World According to Scoble” is not reflective of the real world, even in the tech space. For example, very little of what you link to is of interest to any CIO in a F100 company.

  6. You put what YOU think is the best stuff up there in your link blog. And that’s fine. You have your own filter. Nothing wrong with that. But, as we have repeated discovered…”The World According to Scoble” is not reflective of the real world, even in the tech space. For example, very little of what you link to is of interest to any CIO in a F100 company.

  7. Robert, welcome back. I missed your informative and witty posts.

    As for not linking to sites without an author listed, I also will not link to them, except to make a point.

    I also won’t link to a post that’s not dated. If I can’t find it within five seconds I’ll exclude the post no matter how valubale I think the information is.

    I’ll even link to posts several days old because of the information value. But I must have the date, even if I don’t use it in my post. I need to know if I’m about to link to soemthing posted six months ago.

    By the way, I try to include dates in all of my posts because I’m always thinking about future researchers.

    Again, welcome back.

    Munir
    Chicago

  8. Robert, welcome back. I missed your informative and witty posts.

    As for not linking to sites without an author listed, I also will not link to them, except to make a point.

    I also won’t link to a post that’s not dated. If I can’t find it within five seconds I’ll exclude the post no matter how valubale I think the information is.

    I’ll even link to posts several days old because of the information value. But I must have the date, even if I don’t use it in my post. I need to know if I’m about to link to soemthing posted six months ago.

    By the way, I try to include dates in all of my posts because I’m always thinking about future researchers.

    Again, welcome back.

    Munir
    Chicago

  9. hmmm .. and where robert would you suggest me placing my name?? After all ‘codenut’ is listed as author on all the post.

    Are you saying that nicks that have been used for almost the entire length of one’s online live isn’t enough?

    I seriously interested about this …

  10. hmmm .. and where robert would you suggest me placing my name?? After all ‘codenut’ is listed as author on all the post.

    Are you saying that nicks that have been used for almost the entire length of one’s online live isn’t enough?

    I seriously interested about this …

  11. Sorry… I stand corrected – my name is not displayed. I didn’t realise that when I changed the theme for Christmas time that the theme author didn’t include the author field.

    Good thing I’ll be changing soon now that the holidays are over with; but this time I’ll make sure the field is there.

  12. Sorry… I stand corrected – my name is not displayed. I didn’t realise that when I changed the theme for Christmas time that the theme author didn’t include the author field.

    Good thing I’ll be changing soon now that the holidays are over with; but this time I’ll make sure the field is there.

  13. [...] Well it looks like WinExtra (aka Steven Hodson, aka codenut ) is on some-one’s blogging radar judging from the traffic out of Robert Scoble’s post about my observation last night. In his response he raises an interesting point about what catches the eye of the A-List; and down, bloggers which was further added to in his post’s comments. [...]

  14. If your message is that the blogosphere (not to mention the net in general) is so clogged with meaningless drivel that we need artificial “filters” to get it down to a manageable level, I agree.

    I’ve started to delete feed that “misbehave” such as marking old items as new again every few hours. That’s caused me to take quite a few old favorites off my list, but when I see a month old post suddenly show up as new, the whole purpose of feeds (to the extent that there is one) is lost. Boom their gone.

    This past week it seems that about a third of my feed entries are about James Brown, now Jerry Ford is taking that spot. Maybe at some point Google will ahve the knowledge base figured out well enough to calculate “He’s read about the former President’s passing 5 times already, let’s just whittle all such items off the list for now.”

    if a new technology doesn’t allow you to do something more efficiently then it probably isn’t doing its job. Oh I’m using feeds, up the wazoo in fact, but I’m also finding fewer hours in the day to do anything else. I’m not sure I’m any better informed than when I used to just read Yahoo news though. After reading all my feeds, I still go back to the “mainstream” aggregators, Yahoo News, Google News, Drudgereport, Washposts, etc and find things I’ve missed. What if an analysis a couple years from now finds that e-mail spam is declining, ONLY because it is being replaced by aggregation/feed spam? As I click through to more and more sites that never load any content because the ad servers they have linked to are bogged down I wonder: are we really any better off?

    As to your filter (named bloggers) I see little correlation. There *is* a correlation between blogger who are paid a salary, such as yourself to post with those who use a name (real or not). Are there any anonymous bloggers working for CNet? Not that I can think of. Ditto for published authors, or anyone selling a product or service that must be associated with their name (Spolsky, etc).

    The other “name factor” is of courses for those, like you, who cover events in an area like Silicon Valley. Hard to do that anonymously, especially when cameras are involved.

    On the other hand, Mini-Microsoft, MacRumors, Comic Strip Blog are among many that I read and either don’t know or don’t care who writes them. At some point the institution, be it a company or a domain name, takes on its own reputation for quality (or otherwise) that is independent of the one or more individuals who produce it.

    While your family affairs are endearing, I don’t come here for those things and in fact I once set up a domain name as a spoof of people who give out just a bit too much information about themselves. Reality soon overtook my ability to spoof the subject however. I don’t see any correction in the near future either. But one of my filters these days is to switch off bloggers who are so clueless as to subject friends and family to unwanted notoriety. If I want voyeurism there are still about half the channels on cable TV to chose from. I use the Internet to get away from such things. To each his own however, I also don’t watch those thousands of video clips on You-tube of people setting themselves on fire and such. The worst of media madness has found the Internet, big-time. I guess there is no escape from the lowest common denominator.

  15. If your message is that the blogosphere (not to mention the net in general) is so clogged with meaningless drivel that we need artificial “filters” to get it down to a manageable level, I agree.

    I’ve started to delete feed that “misbehave” such as marking old items as new again every few hours. That’s caused me to take quite a few old favorites off my list, but when I see a month old post suddenly show up as new, the whole purpose of feeds (to the extent that there is one) is lost. Boom their gone.

    This past week it seems that about a third of my feed entries are about James Brown, now Jerry Ford is taking that spot. Maybe at some point Google will ahve the knowledge base figured out well enough to calculate “He’s read about the former President’s passing 5 times already, let’s just whittle all such items off the list for now.”

    if a new technology doesn’t allow you to do something more efficiently then it probably isn’t doing its job. Oh I’m using feeds, up the wazoo in fact, but I’m also finding fewer hours in the day to do anything else. I’m not sure I’m any better informed than when I used to just read Yahoo news though. After reading all my feeds, I still go back to the “mainstream” aggregators, Yahoo News, Google News, Drudgereport, Washposts, etc and find things I’ve missed. What if an analysis a couple years from now finds that e-mail spam is declining, ONLY because it is being replaced by aggregation/feed spam? As I click through to more and more sites that never load any content because the ad servers they have linked to are bogged down I wonder: are we really any better off?

    As to your filter (named bloggers) I see little correlation. There *is* a correlation between blogger who are paid a salary, such as yourself to post with those who use a name (real or not). Are there any anonymous bloggers working for CNet? Not that I can think of. Ditto for published authors, or anyone selling a product or service that must be associated with their name (Spolsky, etc).

    The other “name factor” is of courses for those, like you, who cover events in an area like Silicon Valley. Hard to do that anonymously, especially when cameras are involved.

    On the other hand, Mini-Microsoft, MacRumors, Comic Strip Blog are among many that I read and either don’t know or don’t care who writes them. At some point the institution, be it a company or a domain name, takes on its own reputation for quality (or otherwise) that is independent of the one or more individuals who produce it.

    While your family affairs are endearing, I don’t come here for those things and in fact I once set up a domain name as a spoof of people who give out just a bit too much information about themselves. Reality soon overtook my ability to spoof the subject however. I don’t see any correction in the near future either. But one of my filters these days is to switch off bloggers who are so clueless as to subject friends and family to unwanted notoriety. If I want voyeurism there are still about half the channels on cable TV to chose from. I use the Internet to get away from such things. To each his own however, I also don’t watch those thousands of video clips on You-tube of people setting themselves on fire and such. The worst of media madness has found the Internet, big-time. I guess there is no escape from the lowest common denominator.