Pet Peeves
Next article: The Matrix: Gnostic or Monastic?
Previous article: General Housekeeping
<soapbox>It really bothers me when web page writers do not link to the article they talk about. I read two different authors talk about the same article, and I have spent the last 2 hours tracking it down. It even exists in two different places. Since it’s so recent, though, it doesn’t show up on the search engines. Only now do I know what these two authors were really talking about, and only now can I really respond and take part in the conversation. By being lazy (or ignorant of how to write for the web), they have wasted two hours of my time. That’s almost as bad as setting an appointment with me and making me wait while you eat lunch somewhere else, then show up two hours late. It is rude and disrespectful. It’s the web, folks. It’s made for linking.</soapbox>
I would link to the culprits, or mention them by name, but that would only be hurtful.
The URL to trackback this post is:
http://kevinbasil.com/2003/05/13/pet-peeves/trackback/
3 Responses to “Pet Peeves”
Copyright © 2002–2011 Kevin Robert (Basil) Fritts, all rights reserved.
May 14th, 2003 at 3:39 pm
But now you’ve piqued our interest.
May 15th, 2003 at 10:21 am
Rude and disrespectful? Maybe if they specifically invited you to go and read that article, but not if they just talked about it. Linking to it would be convenient, sure. Assuming you’re talking about someone’s web log, I’d say web logs are for informal conversation, and aren’t subject to the bibliography requirements of a formal essay or research paper. If they do have links to everything mentioned or alluded to, that’s a bonus.
May 15th, 2003 at 4:54 pm
Sockmonk, you’re right except that when they refer to it, the reader has no way of knowing what they’re talking about. “So and so’s article is interesting, but I disagree. Here’s why….” Statements like this are nearly meaningless if I don’t know what is being responded to. At least quote. Cut and paste. Something. Sheesh.