I keep thinking about recent comments around here which seemed to suggest that blogrolls ought to remain intact... FOREVER.
Moreover, they seemed to strongly suggest that blogrolls are like some kind of popularity contests and that removing someone from the list says more than, "I don't enjoy this blog that much, anymore."
I honestly don't get that. It seems like kid stuff.
What am I missing here?
25 comments:
I rarely change my blog roll. I am guilty of having blogs on there that I know people haven't updated in awhile, but lately I have tried to keep it more up-to-date. I have never had any complaints (that I know of) when I've dropped people from my blog roll. Seems very immature. It's my blog if you don't like how I run it then don't visit. It's all quite simple.
Brotha West, I've been blogging since late 2002 sometime. And it was a big thing back then to keep or place someone on a blogroll and hell to pay if or when they were removed.
I didn't know some folks still kept up with the petty practice because before this post, I hadn't heard a peep about it. But that's not saying much, maybe the blogs I go to have folks who are mature and don't wallow in such stuff.
All I say is man, you aren't missing anything. Much like that comment post I put up a few weeks ago, people have some form of complex about seeing how many places relating to the blogosphere has references to them! In fact, I'm going to do a throwback post just for you and show you how petty folks can get. Stay tuned man... in the meantime, just keep doing it like you've been doing it and the heck with everyone else..
It is immature and bottom line is I add who I visit as well as who visits me on a regular. When I started blogging plenty of people would email asking you to add their link (please) and thus increasing their popularity and then they never come back to your blog or comment again. Bottom line is just like my Tivo, I program what I like and nothing else.
Actually, it seems, more and more, that the comic blogoverse has become like High School way more than anyone will admit.
Everything and every blog seems to have their own click. How you are treated at that blog, with regards to linking or anything else, depends entirely on whether you fit in with that click or not. And heaven help you, if you don't.
There is also a huge number of "link whores", who would probably sell their mother's soul to the Devil, if it meant he'd link them on his website.
Then you have my own recent personal example of this, when people who you don't want to link you (and by all rights probably shouldn't even want to bother with you or your blog), do so against your wishes. As if their desire for their blog is more important than respecting the community of other bloggers and their wishes concerning how and by whom their content is linked.
The whole thing is just insane. As I said, it's High School all over again, with the "popular" people playing judges as to who is "worthy" of being in the click, a huge number of wannbes who would do or say anything to be a part of their world, and the outsiders who are nothing more than the fodder for their jokes and ridicule for simply not conforming to what they think.
I guess the more things changes the more they DO remain the same.
LOL@ james meeley .. "link whores" ...too funny..! That about sums it up.
I think, perhaps, you mean "Clique".
I don't get it either. It doesn't bother me when someone pulls my blog from their blogroll--heck, it makes sense, as I don't exactly blog much anymore.
I noticed that, but didn't see what the big deal was. When I visit a blog alot, I add that person's link to my blog. If that person stops blogging, or hasn't blogged in months, then I take them off. There have been a few who have creeped me out a lil' and some how talk about the same thing as if they LIKE being depressed or bitter.... their links disappear from my blog too.
Have you ever removed someone from you blog due to comments or conversations that had nothing to do with their respective blog? Either directly or indirectly.
I didn't know the list was a popularity contest. I made a list so it would be easier for me to find the folks that I read all the time. When they stop blogging or don't update that often I take 'em off. Where's the mystery?
Sometimes people take things way too seriously. Who you link to is your choice, and without context it means nothing more than "Look at this, it might be interesting."
Yeah, it's great to be linked... but it's hardly a personal affront to get dropped when someone decides to clean up their sidebar. IMO, anyone who takes it that way is overreacting.
re: "Have you ever removed someone from you blog due to comments or conversations that had nothing to do with their respective blog? Either directly or indirectly."
I don't know what you mean.
re: chele's "I didn't know the list was a popularity contest. I made a list so it would be easier for me to find the folks that I read all the time. When they stop blogging or don't update that often I take 'em off. Where's the mystery?"
Makes sense, to me.
I don't want a blogroll with a really long list. Maybe that'll change, some time, but at this point I just want a list of blogs that I read regularly.
If I stop reading a blog, for whatever reason (tone, content, etc.), I usually take it off. That recent comments gave me the impression that it was seen quite differently by others.
To be fair, he said that it was "no big deal," but he also suggested that taking people off of my blogroll was a sign that I wasn't open to differing opinions or wanted to be surrounded by "yes-men."
He went on to say, "Once you're on mine, you stay no matter what you might do to piss me off." To me, that's a helluva statement and suggests that neither tone nor content are very mature reasons for removing someone from your blogroll.
Obviously, I see things very differently.
re: "Sometimes people take things way too seriously. Who you link to is your choice, and without context it means nothing more than "Look at this, it might be interesting."
Yeah, it's great to be linked... but it's hardly a personal affront to get dropped when someone decides to clean up their sidebar. IMO, anyone who takes it that way is overreacting."
Agreed.
By the way, welcome, Kelson.
Whichever post you made about some unnamed blog and her making you mad and all that, I think down in the comment bar a few of the first comments said something about "checking to see if i'm still on the blogroll" or something to that effect.
So I don't think it was just "him" who may have viewed the blogroll thing as something of a popularity contest. Kind of like, uh oh, West is mad. Will he react by taking so and so off blogroll. Kind of like that's your "get back" for so and so making you upset.
As for the question I asked you didn't understand, I guess I was wondering if you would take someone off your blogroll based on things that had nothing to do with their blog?
re: "Whichever post you made about some unnamed blog and her making you mad and all that, I think down in the comment bar a few of the first comments said something about "checking to see if i'm still on the blogroll" or something to that effect.
So I don't think it was just "him" who may have viewed the blogroll thing as something of a popularity contest. Kind of like, uh oh, West is mad. Will he react by taking so and so off blogroll. Kind of like that's your "get back" for so and so making you upset."
I think you misinterpreted those posts.
If I remember correctly, the first comment was from someone who'd did and does frequent the blog in-question. Basedon that and the fact that the blog USED to be on my list, but had since been removed, he made an educated guess about which blogger I meant.
The other case was someone else who DIDN'T know which blog/blogger I had an issue with. So having seen someone say that the offending blogger's link was gone but having noticed that her link was still present, she eliminated herself as the possible offender.
So, it wasn't a situation where West gets mad and people wonder if he'll blindly lash out. It was a case of identifying the unidentified offender using the available clues.
re: "As for the question I asked you didn't understand, I guess I was wondering if you would take someone off your blogroll based on things that had nothing to do with their blog?"
It's like saying you no longer like someone, but you still go over his/her house to hang out. Some people may choose to do that, but it shouldn't be surprising when someone chooses not to do so... even if your problem with that person has nothing to do with his or her house.
The answer is "yes," by the way.
So then it's not always a story of this blog isn't fun for me anymore, as you stated in the comments section of another post. But sometimes someone says something you don't like, and your recourse is removal from blogroll.
I think that seems kind of odd considering you're all about "engaging in open discussion" and what not, yet if someone disagrees one to many times, you do one of a few things. Run away from the conversation, which you've done with me in my short time here, or in the case of these other bloggers, removal from hallowed blogroll.
I don't think you're that different from those bloggers you mention in the Larsen speaks about the value of criticism post you made, but that's just me. And if it just me, it might just be because "bloggers surround themselves with guys that love them." And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that. That's the way people are.
I don't update my links hardly ever.
But I like to think I'm able to get along with everyone. Inspite of differences of opinion.
re: rider's "So then it's not always a story of this blog isn't fun for me anymore, as you stated in the comments section of another post. But sometimes someone says something you don't like, and your recourse is removal from blogroll."
If they say something I don't like... and that affects my enjoyment of their blog, I think it makes a lot of sense for me to stop visiting that person's blog if that's what I want to do.
In any case, here's my original response, before I trimmed it for space:
"re: "Whichever post you made about some unnamed blog and her making you mad and all that, I think down in the comment bar a few of the first comments said something about "checking to see if i'm still on the blogroll" or something to that effect.
So I don't think it was just "him" who may have viewed the blogroll thing as something of a popularity contest. Kind of like, uh oh, West is mad. Will he react by taking so and so off blogroll. Kind of like that's your "get back" for so and so making you upset."
I think you misinterpreted those posts.
If I remember correctly, the first comment was from someone who'd did and does frequent the blog in-question. Basedon that and the fact that the blog USED to be on my list, but had since been removed, he made an educated guess about which blogger I meant.
The other case was someone else who DIDN'T know which blog/blogger I had an issue with. So having seen someone say that the offending blogger's link was gone but having noticed that her link was still present, she eliminated herself as the possible offender.
So, it wasn't a situation where West gets mad and people wonder if he'll blindly lash out. It was a case of identifying the unidentified offender using the available clues.
re: "As for the question I asked you didn't understand, I guess I was wondering if you would take someone off your blogroll based on things that had nothing to do with their blog?"
"I may remove someone's name from my blogroll due to a neutral or negative impression of the person or his/her blog. So, the answer is "yes."
The blog is an extension of the individual. If the individual really turns me off, the same traits may be evident in that individual's blog. Even if they're not, I may associate the blog with the individual.
It's like saying you no longer like someone, but you still go over his/her house to hang out. Some people may choose to do that, but it shouldn't be surprising when someone chooses not to do so... even if your problem with that person has nothing to do with his or her house."
The way I see it, that's quite consistent with what I've said before.
re: Rider's "I think that seems kind of odd considering you're all about "engaging in open discussion" and what not, yet if someone disagrees one to many times, you do one of a few things. Run away from the conversation, which you've done with me in my short time here, or in the case of these other bloggers, removal from hallowed blogroll."
Apparently, you think two people should sit and argue about something for all of eternity. I don't.
What you call "running away" I call "agreeing to disagree." And if you disagree about that, well... *shrugs*
Secondly, if I disagree with someone so strongly that I no longer have a tolerance for their material, I think that makes sense. If you think that's a sign that I'm not really interested in "engaging in open discussion," I think your analysis is flawed.
re: Rider's "I don't think you're that different from those bloggers you mention in the Larsen speaks about the value of criticism post you made,"
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Luckily, it is no reflection on me.
re: Rider's " but that's just me. And if it just me, it might just be because "bloggers surround themselves with guys that love them." And you know what, there's nothing wrong with that. That's the way people are."
I don't see anything wrong with surrounding oneself with those that enjoy your work. In fact, I'm pretty sure I criticized other traits exhibited by certain bloggers, artists, and people.
And if you still disagree, that's fine, as the irony of my consistent engagement with YOU doesn't seem to impress you much. Oh well.
That's why I choose to engage people while attempting to limit how much I care about them actually getting or agreeing with what I say. It's a tough balance, but it's one I think I do a decent job of maintaining... moreso than a lot of other folks, actually.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
re: mallet's " I don't update my links hardly ever.
But I like to think I'm able to get along with everyone. Inspite of differences of opinion."
Hey, mallet! Long time, no see. (or it seems that way, at least)
If I never updated them, I'd have at least three dead links on my blogroll... including one to someone who recently pointed out that his link is now missing.
People are welcome to do what they want to, of course, but I don't see why it makes MORE sense to leave a dead link on my blog than it does to remove any links that I no longer find useful or enjoyable.
It is a popularity contest, West. And it seems like the women are competing desperately with each other for the male bloggers' attention. I've seen it. It's getting catty and malicious amongst the women in the world of blogging. And bloggers certainly surround themselves with readers who will wholeheartedly agree with everything they're blogging about -even though they don't agree at all. It is childish; like playtime at school. And people will do anything to make and keep a friend. It's only blogging. But you know, some people take blogging seriously; too seriously sometimes...
Will you blog roll me? LOL. Just kidding.
re: jojo d.'s "And bloggers certainly surround themselves with readers who will wholeheartedly agree with everything they're blogging about -even though they don't agree at all."
That's kinda sad.
What some folks seem to misunderstand about me is the distinction I make between people who disagree with me and people who disagree by way of unprovoked sarcasm and general assholery.
Despite my many posts and comments expressing my distaste for the latter, I'd hate to be free of them at the cost of the former.
My interest in people's opinions is matched by my interest in their reasons for feeling the way that they do.
Now that I think about it, that's something else people often don't get about me.
What's wrong with unprovoked sarcasm?
re: "What's wrong with unprovoked sarcasm?"
Welcome, anonymous.
To answer your question, I suppose sarcasm has its place, but even if it can be "good," it's certainly an example of how one can have "too much of a good thing."
To be more direct, my aversion to some sarcasm, among other things, is mostly due to the fact that it so often leads to escalation... and derailment of the discussion.
Too often, one person drops a zinger on another, then that person is more interested in getting the other person back than in responding with reason.
Good luck getting folks to abandon their pride in favor of civil discourse, at that point.
By the way, you're welcome to comment anonymously, if you prefer, but it's sometimes helpful if anonymous commentary were "signed" with a fake name or something. At least it'd give us something to call you... especially if there are multiple anonymous comments, over the course of the whole discussion.
Nice talking with you. *runs to find sumpin' to eat*
Post a Comment