Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD:
cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com


Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Jay Guevara 2025
Jim Sunk New Dawn 2025
Jewells45 2025
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021

Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

TBD





















« Chechen Terrorist Gets Justice-- Ace of Spades Justice | Main | White House Counts Its Chickens: Expecting Significant Upward Revision in FY 2004 Jobs »
October 05, 2004

Link Etiquette?: Always Leave Something Juicy Behind

I have an rule about how links are supposed to work. I wonder if everyone agrees.

Basically, I think that when you link someone else's find or analysis, you're permitted to excerpt a taste of what they're quoting or saying, but it's always important to leave something fairly important behind to click on. After all, if you just quote all the good parts, you've left your audience with no reason to click on the link-- the blog that tipped you gets the link, for what that's worth, but very little traffic at all.*

I'm pretty good about observing this rule, although sometimes the site I've gotten something from is just a one-line mention, so it's hard to describe the article linked there and still leave something behind for a reader to click on.

Just to show you what a good guy I am, I'll mention that I once linked a one-sentence blurb from Marcland. I really couldn't leave anything behind for readers to click through to, so I scanned his site for something else interesting, and found something quickly (he has lots of interesting stuff, after all): photos of Saturn's rings from the Cassini spacecraft. So I stole his link, but then linked to something that was just on his site.

And I left out lots of good stuff in the Six Meat Buffet story I just linked-- including a link to the actual article. Yeah, in a way, I'm making it less convenient for my readers. But then, my readers are only getting the story due to Six Meat Buffet's work (assuming they didn't find the story through some other source), so, inconvenient or not, it's the tax that has to be paid to Six Meat Buffet.

My own pet peeve is when someone just republishes an entire top ten I wrote. The whole thing, start to finish. Bloggers always link me when they do this, but with 10 through 1 already published on someone else's site, what's the point of the link? Might as well call the link Honestly, there's no reason to click on these red words whatsoever. Spend your time doing something more productive, like calling your mom and thanking her for the birthday afghan. **

I also think there's gray area: What do you do when someone just quickly links an article with a one-sentence digest, but you find it more interesting and want to quote and analyze at length? It seems silly to withhold the direct link to the article from your readers in favor of linking to the blog where you found the link; and yet, if you don't do that, you're stealing traffic that the blogger-source actually earned.

Again, in that case, I think it's best to find something else interesting on that site and then link that. Link the article directly, but make sure that your actual source gets some traffic somehow.

I think that most people do observe the Thou Shalt Always Share Traffic For a News Find rule; I think most people understand it implicitly.

And I know that I have violated the rule myself. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue and all that. But I do try to observe it.

I'm not sure if this is an agreed-upon rule or what. It seems to be a sort-of rule, but maybe it's more of a guideline. Maybe I'm wrong.

Just tossing it out there.

* I guess Instapundit is the past-master at leaving everything behind. One tenth of Instapundit's links are just: "Heh." I don't know-- that seems to be taking the rule to extremes. "Heh."

I've dabbled with the idea of publishing no original words whatsoever on this blog whatsoever, except "Heh." No headlines, no comments. I'll just out-Instapundit Instapundit and link everything with a "Heh."

Maybe Friday.

** Ann Coulter did exactly just that to me, but given that this link actually moved me from the three-digits to four-digits of traffic after three weeks of prominent exposure.

Plus, you know, it was Ann Coulter. You don't fuck around with Ann Coulter. Lest she call you a girly-man.


posted by Ace at 12:12 AM
Comments



Trying to come up with standards is good, but I never know where I fit, 'cause when I link somebody they always end up LOSING traffic. Which I think is rude on my part.

Posted by: the UNPOPULIST on October 5, 2004 12:49 AM

Wow - sort of a traffic black hole, eh, UP? Well never mind, thanks for the link the other day.

Since I don't pay attention to my traffic, being more of a reader than a writer, if it went down, I might not notice.

And, back on topic - the standards mentioned seem quite reasonable, Ace, and I'm looking forward to the day you out-Insty the professor. Why not let Hoke do it for you as a "guest"?

Posted by: Patton on October 5, 2004 01:29 AM

Ace--

Good posting; that's sound advice I'm trying to follow, albeit not always perfectly.

However, how do you treat blatant rip-offs? I mean, Garfield Ridge wouldn't exist without the inspiration of Ace of Spades.

In fact, I like to think of my site as the Jennifer Jason Leigh to your Bridget Fonda. I even got my hair cut to look just like you!

Maybe we can be friends? Best of friends? Super-duper best friends? And together we can eat Hagen-Daz, talk about boys, and scratch out the eyes from all the supermodel pictures in Cosmo?

Or would that get weird?

Your number one fan,
Dave
Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 5, 2004 01:51 AM

If it's a one line deal, I usually just give a hat tip with a link to the main page, add another link to the one line post - but also link to the article. The "heh" type stuff doesn't do a lot for me. Obviously, it does for some.

When I take something from a site I always leave the meat behind, and usually a suggestion to scope out the original. If it's a quick funny bit, I may even only take a sentence and just tell people to have a look for themselves.

Posted by: Dan on October 5, 2004 02:03 AM

“You don't fuck around with Ann Coulter.”

Help me out here. I’m trying to put the akcent on the right sileyebul.

Posted by: Lastango on October 5, 2004 02:14 AM

When reading blogs, am I the only one who tends to skip over long blockquotes? I think people would rather read the original than a really long quote - so I think Ace's method is reader-friendly as well as blogger-friendly. Half the fun of reading people like Ace or Allah or Reynolds is the creative way with which they set up their links - giving just enough hint to make you want to follow it. But if there's a giant excerpt, I'm more inclined to skip it altogether. That might just be me, though.

Posted by: Johnny Walker Red on October 5, 2004 02:16 AM

I almost know what you mean, Ace. If I had a blog,
I would link the shit out of you. It is unfortunate that
neither you nor I is especially smart.

Posted by: just a man on October 5, 2004 03:17 AM

no offense.

Posted by: just a man on October 5, 2004 03:18 AM

Ace, you're linking etiquette is right on the money, but it went in one ear and out the other because you just had to bring HER into it.
Now I just can't stop thinking about Ann Coulter.
I can see her now, standing over me dressed in black leather, whip in one hand and a cowbell in the other.
"The guys get ****ing shirts, Girly Man" she'd say in that low breathy neocon voice....

Posted by: msl on October 5, 2004 08:03 AM

Can I fuck around with Ann Coulter? I'd pay good money, I'm tellin' you.

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes on October 5, 2004 08:08 AM

Ditto on the Coulter comments. No UM law students like her when I was there, daggummit.

New topic: Is Peggy Noonan the conservative M(you'd)LF?

Oh, and as for the linking thing, I've written the site owner to ask if I could copy a whole post before. If they give permission, I will. That's with things that are really good that my friends (who are sadly the only people who visit my blog) shouldn't miss like letters from service people in Iraq who are sharing their experiences. Most people are pretty cool about it, so far. And, I have linked back to those sites multiple times on different topics as a hook-up.

Hope that makes sense.

Posted by: Birkel on October 5, 2004 09:51 AM

To answer Birkel: Yes on Noonan.

To top Ace: I'm just linking everything with the word "Ha".

Posted by: Senator PhilABuster on October 5, 2004 12:08 PM

Hey Birkel, I visited your blog. And I'm not your friend.

Posted by: Phil on October 5, 2004 12:28 PM

Ace, I've been a blogger less than two months and ask only patience. I think there are lots of new bloggers who don't know the etiquette (trackbacks with no link to the source?). I've tried to pick up all the rules quickly thanks to posts like this, and others from DEan and Bill INDC. Hell, I now suffer from trackbacks with no link back to me, but there's plenty of slack to go around.

Now the juicy part...a link from Ann Coulter? I can just imagine the sound of new bloggers like me as we bow before you and chant "we're not worthy".

Posted by: SteveL on October 5, 2004 12:49 PM

Phil, you don't have to be so harsh. I'm honored to have you as my guest. And to be Ace's.

Posted by: Birkel on October 5, 2004 02:05 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?








Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]
Top Headlines
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Jim Lakely of Heartland Institute joins CBD for a discussion of their recent polling that shows a majority of 18-39s want socialism, the Epstein files, what will Mamdani do, and more!
Live voting in the House to end the shutdown.
I don't know if this is a preliminary procedural vote or what.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: Buck Throckmorton joins us for a wide-ranging discussion about the cultural and business shift away from the insanity of EVs and Climate Religion, his calm perspective on last week's election, Tucker is a toad, and more!
Our Favorite British Couple Exploring True America Experiences Flora-Bama And Sees A Side Of The Deep South Rarely Seen. [dri]
Tucker Carlson claims that it's weird that Ted Cruz is interested in the massacre of Christians by Nigerian Muslims, because he has "no track record of being interested in Christians," then blows off the massacre of Christians by Nigerian Muslims, saying it might or might not be a real concern
Tucker Carlson enjoys using the left-wing tactic of "Tactical Ignorance" to avoid taking positions on topics. Is Hamas really a terrorist organization? Tucker can't say. He hasn't looked into it enough, but "it seems like a political organization to me." Are Muslims slaughtering Christians in Nigeria? Again, Tucker just doesn't know. He hasn't examined the evidence yet. He knows every Palestinian Christian who said he was blocked from visiting holy sites in Bethlehem, but he just hasn't had the time to look into the mass slaughter of Christians in Nigeria that has been going on since (checks watch) 2009. He doesn't know, so he can't offer an opinion. Wouldn't be prudent, you know? Don't rush him! He'll sift through the evidence at some point in the future and render an opinion sometime around 2044.
Of course, if you need an opinion on Jewish Perfidy, he has all the facts at his fingertips and can give you a fully informed opinion pronto. Say, have you ever heard of the USS Liberty incident...?
You'd think that the main issue for Tucker Carlson, who pretends to be so deeply concerned about Palestinian Christians being bullied by Jews in Israel (supposedly), would be the massacre of 185,000 Christians in Nigeria itself. But no, his main problem is that Ted Cruz is talking about it, "who has no track record of being interested in Christians at all." And then he just shrugs as to whether this is even a real issue or not.
Whatever we do we must never "divide the right," huh?
Tucker is attacking Ted Cruz for bringing the issue up because he's acting as an apologist for Jihadism, and he can't cleanly admit that Jihadists are killing any Christians, anywhere. There is no daylight between him and CAIR at this point.
One might conclude that Tucker Carlson himself isn't interested in the plight of Christians -- except as they can be used as a cudgel to attack Jews.
Just gonna ask an Interesting Question myself -- why is it that Tucker Carlson's arguments all track with those shit out by Qatarian propaganda agents and the far left? That if Jews crush an ant underfoot it is worldwide news, but when Muslims slaughter Christians it elicits not even a vigorous shrug?
Garth Merenghi is interviewed by the only man who can fathom his ineffable brilliance -- Garth Merenghi
From the comments:
I once glimpsed Garth in the penumbra betwixt my wake and sleep. He was in my dream, standing afar, not looking my way, nor did he acknowledge me. But I felt seen. And that's when I knew I was a traveler on the right path. I'm glad he's still with us.

Now that's some Merenghian prose.
Garth Merenghi on the writer's craft

Greetings, Traveler. If you still have not experienced Garth Merenghi -- Author, Dream-weaver, Visionary, plus Actor -- the six episodes of his Darkplace are still available on YouTube and supposedly upscaled to HD. (Viewing it now, it doesn't appeared upscaled for shit.)
I think the second episode, "Hell Hath Fury," is the best by a good margin. Try to at least watch through to that one. It's Mereghi's incisive but nuanced take on sexism.
CJN podcast 1400 copy.jpg
Podcast: The elections! NYC, Virginia, New Jersey, Texas, California, and the future prospects of the Republican party...
Update on Scott Adams:
Scott Adams had approval for this cancer drug but they hadn't scheduled him to get it. He was taking a turn for the worse. Trump had told him to call if he needed anything, so he did. Talked to Don Jr (who is in Africa) , then RFK Jr, then Dr Oz. Someone talked to Kaiser and he was scheduled. Shouldn't have needed it but he did and he says it saved his life.
Posted by: Notsothoreau
Funny retro kid costumes, thanks to SMH
Good to see people honoring Lamont the Big Dummy
Four hours of retro Halloween commercials and specials
The first short is the original 1996 appearance of "Sam," the dangerous undead trick-or-treater from Trick r' Treat.
On Wednesday, we'll see the "Beaver Super-Moon." Which sounds hot.
Recent Comments
Publius Redux: "Hey Puddleglum! ..."

Skip : "G'Day everyone ..."

Fluffy Nuggets, Jr.: "Good morning. Does anyone know where the love of G ..."

Publius Redux: "Damn your eyes m! At least now you have to call t ..."

Puddleglum, cheer up for the worst is yet to come: "Mornin' ..."

Publius Redux: "1st? ..."

m: "w00t ..."

m: "Pixy's up! ..."

JQ: "Publius, we had unseasonably high temps here last ..."

Skip : "That was a waste of time, could have had coffee u ..."

publius, Rascally Mr. Miley (w6EFb): " We're in the middle of a little warm snap. Tie ..."

JQ: ">>We put the santa sled in the foyer. Its big enou ..."

Bloggers in Arms
Some Humorous Asides
Archives