The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

14 April 2006

Who do I have to **** to get a link?

Harvey is asking: "Does it do any good to email high-traffic bloggers?"

In his experience, it's a definite maybe. He wrote to thirty of the Higher Beings with this question:

Someone recently remarked to me that bloggers with high-traffic sites don't read e-mails from — or link to — anyone except other high traffic bloggers. I don't think that's true. I think it's more a matter of having a tactful approach, and I wrote a post saying as much:

http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/166595.php

Now, I'm sure you have other subjects to write about, and if you have no interest in this topic, I understand completely, so there's no need to act on this e-mail at all if you don't want to.

However, it occurs to me that you probably get dozens of annoying "please link this" e-mails every day. Discussing my post would give you a perfect excuse to school your readers on the art of sending you short, on-topic, useful e-mails instead of rambling junk — a topic that would normally be off-theme for your blog.

A reasonable request, I think, and eleven of thirty (a slightly higher percentage than I would have predicted) gave him some kind of response.

It perhaps is presumptuous for me to have anything to say on this subject, since I'm far from a brand name in blogdom — as of yesterday, N. Z. Bear has dropped me back among the possums and such — but I do try to read everything I get that gets through my spam filters, and historically, about half the material that was sent me has ended up in a post of some sort. (This does not include the dizzying variety of mailing lists I seem to be on, a substantial proportion of which I don't remember ever requesting.)

Myself, I seldom suggest topics; I've sent occasional background material to a few of the Major Players, and once in a while one of them has responded. I see this as a useful vector: from smaller to larger. After all, nobody, not even Reynolds and his phalanx of nanobots, can cover everything.

Posted at 6:18 AM to Blogorrhea


...as of yesterday, N. Z. Bear has dropped me back among the possums and such...

No way. I hadn't checked my own ranking in a while, and I'm still a large mammal this morning.

Just one more reason for my contention that rankings should be based on traffic -- ain't no way my 200-300 daily uniques makes me a bigger blog than Dustbury.

Posted by: McGehee at 8:11 AM on 14 April 2006

Way. I'm down around #1100 or so.

Posted by: CGHill at 9:10 AM on 14 April 2006

Guys, after years of blogging I'm still around 6500; if you're looking for sympathy it aint gonna work.

Posted by: akaky at 10:28 AM on 14 April 2006

What really surprised me about the results is that 2 of the respondants were politically polar opposites to me. I guess blogging trumps partisanship :-)

McGehee - some thoughts about links vs hits ranking:

http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/048724.php

Posted by: Harvey at 3:40 PM on 14 April 2006

Argh. Why does anyone even look at that NZ Bear ecosystem? It's not based on anything, believe me.

I sure do get dozens of "please link this" requests every day in my inbox. But they all seem to be for penis pills and refinancing offers...

Seriously, my general attitude on such requests is, start your own blog and post it there. I understand wanting to get in the high-traffic lanes, but unless it tickles my fancy -- and it rarely does -- I don't feel obligated to serve as a PR outsource.

That said, I've occasionally passed on some items to other bloggers who I feel could do the subject more justice. I know I've sent you at least one.

Posted by: CT at 11:35 AM on 15 April 2006

My N.Z.Bear rankings move up and down and seem completely unrelated to number of visits or responses or anything else I can pinpoint. So don't fret, many readers are here.

Posted by: anne at 11:52 AM on 15 April 2006