The Critical 'I'

Read. React. Repeat.

Saturday, May 08, 2004

BLOGPOST SOURCE ATTRIBUTION
The attribution credit at the end of this post at MemeMachineGo! got me to thinking:
(First saw this in Boing Boing but didn’t actually get around to reading it till Sumana posted about it. Sometimes I’m tempted to just give up attribution…)
As you can see from my response comment, I've got some ideas on this:
Is there a blogger etiquette on attribution? I think you have to cite only where you read it, and count on that source to link back to where they saw it, etc. Also think it makes more sense to link to the actual permalink, instead of just the main blog URL.
It's common courtesy to give credit where it's due. I don't think you're required to cite every single link in the hyperlink chain, though. I think it's reasonable to limit your kudos (and accompanying trackback) to the single main source you relied on to inspire your own post. That's how I operate; it's just easier, and if the reader is that interested in tracking down the trail, they can click away.

The second part of my comment is something I'd like to see more widespread: In the attribution, I think it's more useful to hyperlink to the specific permalink where you got your information/inspiration, rather than the main blog URL. (I just practiced what I preached in the previous post.) It's frustrating for me to come across a post that cites another blog, then click through to that blog and not be able to find the referring post. Yes, I can probably search the blog for it, but why should I have to go through that extra step? I may already have a convert for this style in Dustbury.com, in his attribution of my Wachovia phishing post; at least, I don't think I've noticed it before.

Any opinions on this, from bloggers and non-bloggers alike?