I fight the linking issue on a weekly basis, it seems. Even within our own company I'm befuddled when my bloggers, or more high-profile blogs just ignore sources or don't link to quality sources, instead choosing to incestuously link ad nauseam or just lazily tag-link. So today I was really flummoxed when a TUAW blogger, Christina, was able to get Fortune to actually link to her piece on TUAW, but so far at WIRED, citing the same article, can't seem to figure out what we've been calling "hyperlinking" since 1997.
I'm sure Bryan Gardiner is under crazy pressure from his bosses to crank up those PV's, just like we all are-- I get that. And I'm guessing his people are being sold the same crappy snake-oil SEO junk regarding incestuous linkages, because the WIRED piece is just chock full of links to other WIRED pages. Oh, there's a requisite link to Apple forums, whoopee!
But I think it hurts credibility to not backlink. It sure doesn't help your karma! And frankly, linking OUT is a good thing for SEO. Not that CNN or PageRank 1 sites need that kind of magic, but why not share the love?
So I linked back to the Fortune piece, and not to the WIRED piece. Until they learn the magic of linking, they can really just f*** off. We don't need your blogtard audience, complete with inane comments and crappy understanding of tech and Apple.
UPDATE: Really nothing new to report, but after 2 emails to the editor I haven't heard a thing. I'll be sure to remember this next time one of my bloggers is hung out to dry because some journo decides we're not real reporters because we don't capitalize The Internet.
one man's journey into creating gibblybits