Quid pro quo
Recently, I came across a site where the owner went on a comical, Mommie Dearest-like rant (very apropos, considering the film) about how he links to other sites while other sites don’t link to his. He gave them an ultimatum: link to my site, or I won’t return the favour.
On one hand, I can see the reasoning. Quid pro quo. You link me and I link you.
On the other hand, I don’t see the reasoning. If you link one site to yours, is the other owner expected to do the same? I don't think so. In all honesty, isn't the main reason people have 1,000 links on their sites is to get the occasional wandering visitor passing by for a cuppa and a crumpet?
Or not. Maybe they do visit 1,000 sites a day.
Personally, my links are determined on a haphazard way.
The first few links were added because they graciously added mine. Every additional link was added because a) I frequent these sites often, like Gawker b) I like what the owners have to say c) they update often and/or d) I use their links.
True, there are other sites that I have found out link to mine and there is an endless list of other sites I peruse, but I don’t include them because of the reasons mentioned above. If I had to link all of the places that I have visited (whether once or a thousand times), I’d have hundreds of URLs.
It doesn’t really matter, anyway. In the end, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do.
Except you have to listen to me when I tell you this…
No. Wire. HANGERS!!
Note: I think I just lost every non-reciprocal link this very second.
On one hand, I can see the reasoning. Quid pro quo. You link me and I link you.
On the other hand, I don’t see the reasoning. If you link one site to yours, is the other owner expected to do the same? I don't think so. In all honesty, isn't the main reason people have 1,000 links on their sites is to get the occasional wandering visitor passing by for a cuppa and a crumpet?
Or not. Maybe they do visit 1,000 sites a day.
Personally, my links are determined on a haphazard way.
The first few links were added because they graciously added mine. Every additional link was added because a) I frequent these sites often, like Gawker b) I like what the owners have to say c) they update often and/or d) I use their links.
True, there are other sites that I have found out link to mine and there is an endless list of other sites I peruse, but I don’t include them because of the reasons mentioned above. If I had to link all of the places that I have visited (whether once or a thousand times), I’d have hundreds of URLs.
It doesn’t really matter, anyway. In the end, you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do.
Except you have to listen to me when I tell you this…
No. Wire. HANGERS!!
Note: I think I just lost every non-reciprocal link this very second.
Authored by S at 12:00 am
6 Comments:
No I agree. I admit I will try to link to people I know are linking to mine. If I get a comment from someone new I'll try to go in and add them so I can check them out. Then every so often I go "clean house" and delete the ones I'm not really reading.
Thanks for adding me though.
Six, I think you're an "e" (not a - d) reason.
Is that as in "e) all of the above" ???
tee hee
or "e) i want to have his babies" ???
:)
S, funny you should write this today. I was thinking about you earlier and was going to ask if you'd link me. Even if you don't, I won't drop your link. You know I like your site.
Six: I'm barren.
Glenn: When I don't link people, it doesn't mean I don't like their site (or their owners). My links are determined by daily usage.
My links are pretty haphazardly assembled too. I feel too guilty to pull people off so I probably have too many, lol. I have 85 links on mine, but only 35 bloggers list me in their blogroll. If I used that other unnamed ranting blogger's rule, my reading time could be greatly reduced. Hmmm. Something to think about.
Post a Comment
<< Home