Do you weblink ?
Sunday, 8. June 2008, 16:04:34
to weblink: to add to one's web content a hyperlink1 to another web content.
I don't want to speak about the legal aspects of hyperlinks2 but about "ethical"/"moral" questions.
Given a personal website lambda which design and content are under intellectual property but no copyright is visible.
Assuming the linking policy of that website doesn't prevent you from linking to it, do you:
a) ask before weblinking ?
b) inform the website then weblink ?
c) just weblink notifying nobody ?
a) doesn't seem to be appropriate ... why asking if you are free to link anyway ?
b) why generating noise/unsolicited email/whatever when you don't expect an answer anyway. And does your recipient really want to know that you have a blog, to know what its address is and ... to be implicitly invited to link to your blog too ! Who says "spam" ?
c) seems to be the best choice. By the way, isn't what everyone likes with the Web that's to say following links
I don't like c). I have made some efforts for my blog but I still don't like it.
A website is a "oeuvre de l'esprit" (help ?
I insist on the point I am speaking of personal websites, blogs, ...
A different topic is linkbacks3... I don't like it neither !
"Hey guy, I have written a blog entry related to one post of yours and believe me, it's worth to be read !" or worse:
"Hey everybody who reads that post, come to this blog entry you might be interested in"
Exaggeratedly, I would call it "targeted publicity", "targeted spam". Mind that I don't speak of abuses like sping4, I speak of any use of that technique.
After that, I must admit I don't know well how blog engines implement that. Technically, it may be possible to let the blog owner moderate trackbacks, ... etc.. But do popular blog engines have this feature ?
---
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink
2: http://www.linksandlaw.com/
3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkback
4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sping






