Friday, 26 October 2012


Not so much a musing as a rant though one with, hopefully, a purpose as a try out for a new line of post as part of the whole enforced hobby break thing. A view from the sidelines if you will.

Nothing wrong with a rant as long as it has a point to make. I've read quite a few that I've enjoyed greatly and have made me have a good think.

So today's subject is re-blogging. Some time ago I chatted on about competitive blogging having noticed a number of offenders afflicting various blog groups / rings etc.

Recently I've noticed the phenomenon of re-blogging as a single post as in a post that's a link to someone else's post. Originally I was unimpressed seeing such an act as hijacking someone's time, effort and insight. All in all a further mutant strain of the filler post.

My ire has been liberally fuelled by the fact that I've regularly scrolled through TGNs blog roll to find the original two down from the re-blog. Grrrrr.....
Being a quizzical / sucker sort of a chap I've still continued to follow through on a few of said posts that had caught my eye. I have to admit that I've stumbled upon a few posts and blogs that I was rather pleased to find and seen my watch-list grow such as THIS ONE!!

So hypocrite or convert? Feel free to let me know :)

To me it seems, as ever with the blog- o-sphere a matter of quality and repetition. By this I mean primarily on the part of the re-blogger.

Do they offer their own quality product? Do they need to if the link leads you to the end of a rainbow?

How does the original poster feel about the whole thing? Is this a form of flattery or battery?
I've been linked to a couple of times and been quite chuffed :)

What's the motivation? Share the love or pad the profile out a bit?

Does anyone (else) care??.............


  1. In general, I say share the love. If posting a link means more people see the original material, and the original blog, perfect, assuming of course that the original poster actually wants the extra readers - but if the person didn't, maybe the blog shouldn't be public?

    Then again, if the re-poster is posting large chunks of the original - or the whole thing - that's an issue, as is misrepresenting what the original says on the assumption no one will click to check. And if it happens every second post, maybe that blogger is being a bit of a burden on the rolls, in which case it's easy to start skipping that blog, and I imagine its readership would naturally go off the boil over time.

    Personally I think it's worth avoiding one post linking to one other post where possible, unless there is some reasonable and fair discussion of that subject, or one closely related to it, in the re-post, or the destination material is seriously good work or an unusually clear idea.

    It also seems right to give a reasonable description of what's at the destination, even if it's just the few words of the link itself, and it's possible to highlight or prioritise the key links in the text using bold or similar.

  2. I'm not the biggest fan of reblogging. I'd go so far as to say that I'm actively annoyed by blogs that do nothing but reblog what other people have blogged (and by Tumblr, which seems to encourage that sort of thing). By all means, share the love and direct people to things of interest, but I counsel embedding those links in some discourse and thought of your own. 's why I do the Read and Respond thing - if something's worth linking to it's worth thinking and talking about.

    Blog networks are different, obviously, as directing traffic to member sites is sort of what they're for, but I still prefer the Weekly Top X approach where there's something amusing around the links.

  3. Cheers for the replies guys.

    Feels like the concesus is that it's all about adding value / showing the relevant respect to the original poste.

    I like the idea of Read and Respond. I probably could respond more, it's always a plus when people take the time to put up a comment especially a constructive one. I know that it always impresses me on here.