A happening today made me realize I had a great followup for the unblogosphere conversation. In my original post, I talked about how many b-list and c-list bloggers link in every post to a-listers, just hoping to get that one link back, which often never happens. Today's happening proves that not linking to an a-lister is just as good a strategy. I have always refused to link to Mike Arrington because I think he's a fraud. When his blog broke the FeedBurner-Google confirmation, I sought out another blog to link to, because I refuse to link to him. In that attempt, I accidentally linked to someone that plagiarized the original author. After watching many of my friends link to this a-lister over-and-over for years with no return link, I was able to get one, by simply not linking to the same a-lister. I think this is validation, that expanding your linking behavior to b-listers and c-listers works, even if by accident.
Sorry about my comment on the crunchnotes post. I speed read it the first time I thought your blog was the splogger Mike was talking about (not that you were the ones who linked to them).
Egg on the face.
My final 2 cents: I like your blog. I would link to you if I had a blog. Very often. Good content.
No sorry was necessary. I'm not easily offended.
Randy
What I hate is when some bloggers get the Geek SuperEgo Syndrome... that "I love me, you can love me too" crap. Many viewers/subscribers do not necessarily equate to profundity. And there ain't nothin' more boring than someone else's ego masturbation. :)
If you take value in the news (you obviously did, since you wrote about it) then the person who broke it deserves the link. You could at least have linked to someone discussing TechCrunch's news...
-Conrad
Duncan.
Hell, nowadays it's hard enough reading all the good blogs out there, let alone linking to them....
- Udo