Are you a source or a sink?
In recent weeks we've seen a lot of discussion floating around about the nature of people in a community. Especially around people's perceived values (both self-perception and societial-perception), Richard Querin today flogs Seth Goldstein for insinuating that as you become more powerful your "need" to link lessens.
In this case, your personal content is so valuable that you don't "need" to dilute it links to sources.
Goldstein's main point is that if you have links from your site, people follow them and then you lose readers or "attention." I find this a tired argument. I understand that if you have 10,000 or so subscribers to your blog that you're not so interested in taking the time to join in a community process like linking.
However, while you are basking in your attention, you may not notice that your relevance is sliding. For bloggers outside your blog, the value of blogging is the conversation. They are the ones that continue to drive those new eyeballs to your site. I have linked to Seth but he will never link to me. That seems wrong.
In a true conversation, mutual value is derived by the back-and-forth of the discussion. This includes letting other people talk and giving credit where it is due. In my conversation here with Seth, my value is the words he has deigned to dribble upon me and his value from my entry is that I linked back to his altar. That is not a healthy or reciprocal relationship.
Richard put this is a wonderfully Canadian way when he said:
So that's it... It's attention driving all this. Reputation, attention, influence, all of them are built and earned - much like respect. The question is whether or not linking makes earning those things easier or more difficult. To be honest I really don't want you to shape my thoughts. I'd rather you provide me the material to shape my own. The quality of the material you provide and the way you provide it will define your reputation in my mind and hence will define the attention you will get from me. Remember, attention is something that you get from me, but you don't get it for nothing, you have to earn it. In my mind, linking helps you earn it, not linking doesn't.
In the end, we have to decide if the blogging is truly a conversation. Seth desires on-going one-way monologues that filter up to a few high profile bloggers. That sort of pyramid org chart isn't what the web is about. It lends itself back to the trappings of the cult of celebrity.
The web is much more interesting when you ignore people who don't link, and let links help you discover new people. I've met many people around the world just due to either my linking to them or vice-versa.
In the end, linking indicates respect. Do we want our attention economy to be devoid of respect? I think not.
I would rather see an attention economy be built with an ethic of respect. I want attention to be something positive and not a corrupting or isolating influence. I want attention to be a nice side effect and not the goal. I want some mechanisms in the blogging community to ensure that my ego doesn't run unchecked and that I don't ever believe I'm personally bigger than the overall conversation.
Technorati Tags: attention, attention economy, respect, reputation, attention trust
Steve Gillmor and now Seth are pushing the "link is dead" concept.
They do have a point, but I'm building readership. Linking still seems the most effective way to insert yourself into the conversation.
BTW: I love the double irony of your post title.
Posted by: Robert W. Anderson | 05 May 2006 at 22:47
I'm still having trouble seeing the point. Linking isn't about building readership. If it is, then blogging is merely another op-ed column with a hook - being a link - to get people to find me.
I don't buy that.
If you aren't linking, you aren't blogging - you're self publishing.
Posted by: Jim Benson | 06 May 2006 at 11:14