No, Links are NOT Dead, Scoble and Gillmore

Yesterday, in the FriendFeed noise pool that I started with my post on FriendFeed, Scoble reacted to my post and ultimately ended up posting a well written response on his blog. That’s great and all, but I noticed (and pointed out to him) that he decided to link to the FriendFeed conversation rather than my blog. I saw this as complete snobbishness. And he was clearly practicing the “no Scoble Google Juice for you!” approach.

But, what was interesting was this response:

David: I wanted my readers to see the conversation that’s happening in both places. I guess you didn’t read Steve Gillmor’s “links are dead” piece. I used to be disappointed that people didn’t link to me either. I got over it.

It got me thinking. Are links dead? I can certainly see the point to Gillmore’s piece, but I also think he jumped to the end game prematurely.

Links are not dead for one reason: That’s how the Internet works! Ever thought about why it is called the INTERnet? Also, links are how Google exists and how it generates its search index (for the most part).

Yes, we do live in an attention age. The best commodity there is online today is eyeballs. When you demand attention, that is good and it is much more valuable than direct links. I gotcha, Scoble (and Gillmore). BUT, the conversation is different than the source. If the entire Internet revolves around conversation, then that would be like newspapers creating their entire frontpage based on what people said at the water cooler rather than the source for a news story.

The new media douchebags of the world get so engrossed in the social part of the new media that I think they sometimes get snobby about the way the Internet does work and how it was built. Gillmore put it this way in a piece:

Links are dead. What I mean by that is that I often choose not to link not as a measure of disrespect but as a measure of an increased recommendation or gesture of authority. In essence I’m suggesting you link to or follow the person, not the individual post or item.

That’s fine, but again, it ignores the source. It is a via. It is more noise pollution, in a weird way.

To me, linking to the source (when you’re a blogger) is not about respect for the person you’re linking to (or not linking to). It isn’t about Google juice. It is about accuracy as a blogger. And this is completely aside from the fact that I, as a blogger, have a certain code of etiquette. Namely, if I’m going to talk about somebody’s viewpoint, I LINK TO THEIR VIEWPOINT. Then, my readers can see what they say, see what I say, and draw their own conclusions.

I have a lot of respect for Scoble. I like the guy like a lot of other people do. But I think his response and handling of that was snobby. And, as Corvida put it, apparently some of the others on FriendFeed are snobby as well. I guess its a good ol’ boy club and I came in yesterday and took a shit in their koolaid. Or at least that’s the way some took it.

That kind of link inbreeding is why my post about A-List bloggers last night is so spot on. I’m just saying.

Like what you read?

If so, please join over 12,000 people who receive exclusive online business and blogging tips, and get a FREE COPY of my eBook, Six Figure Blogger Blueprint (PDF and MP3)! Just enter your name and email below: