Blogging etiquette

Jared posted a trackback right away and commented. It didn’t bother me, I just think the people that are having the discussion on his blog aren’t regular commenters on mine. I’d rather conversation happen regardless of who’s blog. I’ve enjoyed the comments on Jared’s blog on the topic that I think spawned this post from Dan. But if Dan is referring to a larger violation that Jared has committed I am unaware.

After seeing all the comment and trackback post you made it started to seem like Jared was a bad guy.

I know Jared isn’t a bad guy, I was just feeding off your antagonistic post.

Dan, I have to disagree with you on this one, for the exact reasons that Jason mentioned in his first comment on this post. I also would disagree about the “forking” example you mentioned in this post, but let’s stick to the main subject.

This is exactly what trackbacks are for, and I used a trackback in this case. In addition to the trackback, I also clearly pointed out in one of the two lines from my post that I got it from Jason. Blog link-posts like this with are common practice in the blogging community, so I don’t know what you’re all bent out of shape about.

Jason is correct in assuming that the reason I posted a link on mine (rather than only commenting on his) was so that some of the people who read my blog but not his would have a chance to see it.

Ideally, I’d like to work out a system where I can pull in comments feeds from other blogs I regularly comment on and include them in a prominent way on my page, but until I write that, I’ll continue to make posts that link to things I find interesting, including other blog posts, unless you’ve got a better idea.

1. I’m not ‘bent out of shape’, it’s just one little thing that bothers me, so little it took me this long to post about it.

2. Spreading news including posts from another site is exactly what the web is about and that’s what trackbacks were created for, you don’t think I understand that? You post as an example is not a normal trackback for two reasons. One, Jason’s site isn’t one of those major/popular sites were a more personal comment thread is necessary. Two, you had nothing new to add.

I fully know you didn’t have any bad intentions nor do you still think it’s a bad idea but it bothers me that two conversations were created off of one discussion. Stagnating thoughts and discussion on one site while starting another somewhere else.

And it wouldn’t have been a big deal if you had something big to say that warranted a post on your site, we’ve both done that plenty of times to each other, you just said “this is awesome…thanks Jason”.

It’s really not that big but instead of re-positioning a post why not just say check this out… and then actually comment on his post. You could even go as far as direct conversation and/or turn off commenting.

PS you might think I’m being ridiculous about this but all of you were the same way about sidebars and fixed width so there.

I guess I should explicitly say why my example of Jared’s post bothered me; having commented on Jason’s site what was I to do when Jared created his post and the separate discussion started, abandon Jason’s site, copy and paste what I already said, just start start fresh with Jared’s post or…?

No, that’s the whole point of trackbacks: the discussions are linked together.

I didn’t “reposition a post”, I DID just say check this out, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there.

I realize what you’re saying regarding having two comment streams going, but until I build what I described above (or find one that is good enough for me not to build it), I don’t see any better solution.

Do you get pissed at Sara if she talks about something with someone else (when you’re not there) that the two of you were talking about before, because now there’s two different “streams” of discussion going? No, that’s just life.

If I had restricted myself to only commenting on Jason’s site, then how would those other people have seen it unless they also read his (which I know some of them don’t – their loss). I’d like to hear how you would address that without just doing a link, like I did, other than disabling comments on that post, which would be silly.

In summary, yes, you are being ridiculous.

Can I reemphasize that this isn’t that big of a deal and no one should get “bent out of shape” or “pissed”. We’re just talking opinion.

No, that’s the whole point of trackbacks: the discussions are linked together.

I didn’t “reposition a post”, I DID just say check this out, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there.

I realize what you’re saying regarding having two comment streams going, but until I build what I described above (or find one that is good enough for me not to build it), I don’t see any better solution.

Do you get pissed at Sara if she talks about something with someone else (when you’re not there) that the two of you were talking about before, because now there’s two different “streams” of discussion going? No, that’s just life.

If I had restricted myself to only commenting on Jason’s site, then how would those other people have seen it unless they also read his (which I know some of them don’t – their loss). I’d like to hear how you would address that without just doing a link, like I did, other than disabling comments on that post, which would be silly.

In summary, yes, you are being ridiculous.

Jared: You’re comment attitude is so “I’m right and you’re wrong”.

I didn’t “reposition a postâ€?

In my opinion you did.

I’d like to hear how you would address that without just doing a link, like I did, other than disabling comments on that post, which would be silly.

Did you just take my previous solution and discredit it with it’s post-question? Anyways, you could read this again:

why not just say check this out… and then actually comment on his post

If you can’t understand that I’ll just rewrite your post.
“Check this out. It’s probably the coolest thing I’ve seen in a while.”

I don’t get why that is so far fetched because you never even linked to his post. Nate, Martha and Kristen probably never knew Jason had an original post. Yes, you trackbacked but that is only one sided. Are you saying that your trackback in essence is telling all of Jason’s viewers to go to your blog to continue the conversation? FYI. That’s a rhetorical question.

I’d also like to encourage you to not describe my attitude more then what I’ve already said even in your examples because you might be wrong which you have been twice, ie “pissed”. I’m not pissed or bent out of shape, I’m just pointing out something that irritates me like rants about drivers. And your example sucks.

Your comment plugin/thing doesn’t make any sense to me, not saying I wouldn’t use it, I just don’t get it but that’s another post of yours which you can use this post to trackback to (FYI that’s a trackback).

Sorry about the tone, sometimes conversations don’t start out the right way when someone accuses me of “stealing” a post from someone else (whatever that might mean, it certainly has a negative connotation).

I’m not saying “I’m right; you’re wrong”. Of course I think I’m “right” in every opinion that I hold, otherwise I wouldn’t hold them as my opinions, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not open-minded about *changing* them at any time. Rereading the post here, I think that you are the one telling me that you are right and I am wrong, unless I’m missing something.

I realize you’re just expressing your opinion, but you also must realize that your opinion is just an opinion as well. You’re trying to “educate” everyone about what trackbacks are or aren’t, but I already know what a trackback is, regardless of whether you agree with my use of it.

To say that trackbacks should only be used for major/popular sites OR when you are adding commentary about the original post is simply you own personal opinion, and lots of people would disagree with you. Trackbacks are a tool to let other bloggers (and readers) know when you have made a post in reference to theirs, which is exactly what I did.

I wasn’t discrediting your idea, just saying that it’s basically exactly what I did. Granted, I just linked to his main page rather than the specific post, but since that post was at the top of his page at the time, I don’t feel too bad about it. Maybe I’ll go back and change that since it does make more sense to link directly to his post, I just wasn’t figuring anyone would notice or care.

So, in the end, it sounds like your only complaint is that my link to Jason went to his general blog as opposed to his specific post, which I do think is a bit silly.

I know that you weren’t upset, and neither was I – just our regular blog discussions / arguments about stuff that neither of us really cares much about either way.

I knew about Jason’s just for the record, but I post on Jared’s. I probably wouldn’t have commented on Jason’s no matter what. No offense, Jason. That’s just the way I am. Not that this matters, but as I said already…oh wait…I’ll just let you read it on Jared’s blog.

I guess <strike>people </strike>somone <strike>are</strike> is already freaking out.

Who’s freaking out?

I want politics. Illegals go home! The freeway was way nicer without you.

Jared: Maybe we should talk this over tomorrow before Lost, if there’s anything to talk about. I think we’ve been very clear with each other so I totally understand your points and I hope you feel the same about mine, no matter if either of us agree with each other. The point of my post is to voice my opinion not to cause an uproar, make nothing into something “controversial” or stamp a new web/blogging rule; like you said the web is free and anyone could do whatever they want, including rants, posting or commenting and I’ve believed that from the beginning.

And in the end “I know that you weren’t upset, and neither was I – just our regular blog discussions / arguments about stuff that neither of us really cares much about either way.”

Martha: It’s so hard for me to respond back to you without fueling the flame, Hmmm, I like you.

I don’t think there’s anything to talk about. Like you said, it’s no big deal. If anyone else is disturbed by our arguing, I apologize; it’s all in good fun.

I am planning on coming over still; I just won’t be there very early – probably right before the show, if that’s OK.

I guess people somone are is already freaking out.

Jared: Maybe we should talk this over tomorrow before Lost, if there’s anything to talk about. I think we’ve been very clear with each other so I totally understand your points and I hope you feel the same about mine, no matter if either of us agree with each other. The point of my post is to voice my opinion not to cause an uproar, make nothing into something “controversial” or stamp a new web/blogging rule; like you said the web is free and anyone could do whatever they want, including rants, posting or commenting and I’ve believed that from the beginning.

And in the end “I know that you weren’t upset, and neither was I – just our regular blog discussions / arguments about stuff that neither of us really cares much about either way.”

Martha: It’s so hard for me to respond back to you without fueling the flame, Hmmm, I like you.

Glad that’s over. Martha, no offense taken. I was interested in your comments on the open school story since you are a teacher and you and Jared have such smart kids. I’m glad that Jared started the post on his blog so I could read the conversation that took place there amongst his regular commenters. I don’t know how you guys find the time for all this commenting, man I’m lucky to make 2-3 comments a day total. This post along is a short novel. Dan your thumb hasn’t slowed you down at all.

[insert a rub-it-in comment here]

ha ha, that is funny Danny boi!

“Dan May 2nd, 2006 at 9:00 pm

Oh yeah, this far without DaveZ is a record.”

Great, now Nathan (and Dave, kind of) is in on the conversation as well… but I feel as though I’ve already said everything I need to say on this particular subject. My opinion remains the same, but I am fine if you guys want to continue to debate the proper manner of linking between sites, who can post what, etc. amongst yourselves. Have fun