I realize that there is no firm rules on the use of trackbacks. But Mark Sigal left a trackback to his post on my post and did not, in any way, shape or form, reference what I said in his post. Trackbacks are not pointers to related conversation, that is what tagging is for. Trackbacks are to note when you specifically reference a post or content in your writing.
This hasn't happened to me that often, but today - twice! I also had my post Scoble Troble "barely-better-than-spammed" by this guy who merely wants to hawk flame cards.
Of course, I get my share of trackback spam - which I would rather receive and delete than to shut off trackbacks like many others do.
I consider trackbacks to be a vital part of the blogging ecosystem. They enhance asynchonous communication and give a natural flow. They allow individual posts to track their own conversation.
They differ from tags in that they are direct communication between authors / between communicators. I feel that's vital to maintain the personal connection in the conversation.
Trackbacks to hawk marginally related crap or to note related posts with no references are merely advertising in trackback clothing.
Photo: Kenn Kaiser
T-Tags: Spam, trackbacks, blogs, blogiquette
You know, WordPress automatically does a trackback when you link to someone's article. While this can be turned off, it is the default (I think).
So, if I say, "Jim linked about this here" and then link to you, it will also become a trackback.
So, if I'm not adding to *your* coversation by linking to you am I just advertising myself? Or am I advertising you?
Posted by: Robert W. Anderson | 31 March 2006 at 16:09
I accidentally left a trackback on someone else's blog today. I published and then thought about it and decided I would publish it at a later date. I also thought I remembered entering the trackback address before when I'd want to... --Maybe it was different settings. But I was surprised to find it on the blog, and regret that it will sit there and seem like a scam or just confusing.
Oh well.
Posted by: Christopher | 31 March 2006 at 18:43
Well first off, I apologize if you feel that my trackback is an affront to blogiquette. No offending intent.
That said, I disagree with your post on two levels. One is that my post was directly related to what you wrote on. TypePad announced a widget program, which you blogged on. My company, vSocial, created a widget for the program and my post referred to the specific instance of the widget on my personal blog.
How is that not 1+1=3, relative to your post, when the average person would otherwise have no idea what you are talking about? In one click they could see a living, breathing example.
The other comment is that I can respect that you feel that my post fails your personal sniff test about blogiquette, but I would say that having been in this space dating back to 1993, there is no one "definition" of netiquette behaviors, although plenty assert that there standard is THE standard.
What is a trackback is reasonably used for? Mine is direct relevance. Yours obviously is that it has to refer specifically to your post. Fair enough. I just wouldn't pull out the banner of absolutes as the net doesn't work that way. It is a mess, and beautiful for it.
That said, I can appreciate where you are coming from.
Cheers,
Mark
Posted by: Mark Sigal | 03 April 2006 at 13:32