The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

9 April 2005

The ten habits of highly irritating bloggers

According to La Shawn Barber, anyway:

1.  Bloggers who trackback to a post on this blog but fail to link to this blog in their post.

I'm usually pretty good about this, though I've noticed that the blogs using HaloScan are basically immune to MT's "auto-discovery" technique, which is something less than infallible in itself. What chaps my hips is a series of multiple TBs on the same post, especially if I, in my blinkered ignorance, sent them myself.

2.  Online news sites that don't link to blogs mentioned in a story.

3.  High-traffic bloggers who forget to link to my blog or mistakenly link to a different blog in a post where my blog is the subject.

#2 I agree with; on #3, I have to wonder if she'd object so strenuously were it a low-traffic blogger committing these sins of omission.

4.  Bloggers who write long posts about why they have no time to blog.

5.  Bloggers who write about their latest illness, right down to the details of an infection and physical description of a rash.

Um, guilty as charged, especially with regard to #5. (Of course, I'm doing this exercise because I have no time to write anything.)

6.  Commenters who respond to a post without actually reading the whole post, or if they have read it, their comment doesn't reflect it.

7.  People who leave off-topic comments on a post to tell me they just e-mailed me.

8.  Bloggers whose posts are mainly complaints against other bloggers.

I think I generally avoid these particular peccadillos ("peccadilli"?).

9.  Bloggers who don't include any biographical information about themselves. Even if blogging anonymously, you can still supply basic, non-identifying information.

10.  Bloggers who either don't list contact information or make it difficult to find.

Were I any easier to find, I'd probably be on your porch.

I conclude that, at least by LSB's standards, I am moderately irritating at best worst.

Posted at 2:06 PM to Blogorrhea


I think she could have tied a lot of these items together into a whole Acts like he/she is still in junior high school category.

Posted by: McGehee at 11:07 AM on 10 April 2005

Like who?

Posted by: eulalie at 3:13 PM on 10 April 2005

I'd say most have these quibbles. I love trackbacking/pingbacking, but unless it's made more automatic (MT's autosearch, WP's auto-pingback are nice, but never will be universal), it'll always be hit or miss. Even Technorati isn't perfect for detecting all the linkbacks.

As for the rest, them's the breaks when dealing with the mass market.

Posted by: CT at 6:49 PM on 10 April 2005

must....resist...sending unrelated trackback....

Posted by: Brian J. at 10:10 AM on 11 April 2005

Let me get this straight. I thought this was a joke,but it's not? There is actually a list of
ten irritating things by bloggers? Oh my god. I
thought this was a joke. Oh my god. Oh my god.
I knew things had gotten bad, but oh my god.

Oh my god.

No no no no no.

(laughs hysterically)

Posted by: eulalie at 10:53 AM on 11 April 2005

#5) Well I didn't blog about my illness (rather it was surgery to remove a splinter) and I didn't include details (I posted photos, YUM!)

Posted by: Dwayne "the canoe Guy" at 11:42 AM on 11 April 2005

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your letting my things show up here since it would seem
a lot of the people on your blogroll, conservative types, have extremely odd moderating tactics.
I'm pretty sure I won't recover any time soon now
that I posted something very nice about Pat Sajak's thing he wrote over at LaShawn Barber's thing, and she didn't post it.

This takes a lot of time doesn't it? And it hardly seems worth it, to take time to write a nice post and have people refuse to post your post. That doesn't seem very etiquettal to me, but that's just one opinion, and not being an upright netizen
I certainly understand that there are rules and we must follow them.

I must say that I found whoever's thumb that was
extremely disgusting, but happy it was a thumb, all the same.

Thanks again very much for your help in this matter.

Posted by: eulalie at 4:22 PM on 11 April 2005

I was wondering something. Back on Thursday, August 15, 2002 you were discussing blogging anonymously. I, personally, don't believe anonymously exists, but for sake of discussion you had an interesting discussion going on about it (anonymous blogging.) If I interpreted correctly what you said, have you in fact changed your mind about anonymous blogging, as I notice you said something about that particular peccadillo on this recent thing you had posted here on your thing. (see # 9 and #10)

You're welcome for taking the time to post on your thing.

Posted by: eulalie at 1:44 PM on 12 April 2005