If I am responding directly to someone, I will link to them. If I think there's value to be added for the reader, I will also link to an essay like that.
Other than that, I do _not_ insert links and footnotes and citations into every blog post. The footnotes would outnumber the paragraphs if not the sentences.
Should I link to Alan Kay every time I discuss objects? How is that different? Or for that matter, if someone discusses the signal-to-noise ratio in programming language idioms, must they mention a post I wrote that was popular at the time?
And FYI, I have written about Blub and linked to Paul's essay as well as written about Blub without linking to Paul's essay. You are right, the two things are exactly the same and I have treated them the same way.
I choose to link or cite when I think it improves the reader's experience. In this case, I didn't think so, and after re-reading AVi's post, I still don't think a link belongs in my post. You could force it in, perhaps by adding a post script "If you find this interesting, you may also like..." or by adding a parenthetical remark "(TAWDry languages have other benefits, like...)."
But you know, that isn't what you are arguing. You do not appear to be arguing that a citation would improve the user experience of the post. Or at least, that's not how it reads. Your comment reads like I have written a scholarly paper and violated the rules of citation. Is that really what you are saying here?
There is a saying that I will attribute to Jerry Kaplan (since I read it in the forward to his book "Startup"):
"Your ideas will go further if you don't insist on going along with them."
Avi hasn't emailed to insist that he go along with that metaphor. Which is probably part of why it is spreading.
The value to the reader of being pointed in a rich new direction is obvious.
I'm not saying that you wrote a scholarly paper. I'm saying you introduced a (fairly esoteric) metaphor with a clear and unambiguous origin and failed to mention it; that struck me as ungracious. As for "forcing it in", it couldn't be more relevant. You named your post after it.
Oh goodness me, that word is redolent of drawing rooms and mannerly discourse.
I present you with two options:
1. There is a comment feature on the post, and it permits you to include hyperlinks. Help yourself. That's exactly what the comments are for, to allow you to suggest avenues of investigation for other readers.
2. If you think there's a rich connection that ought to be mined in prose, write a blog post and go into as much detail as you think appropriate. I'd like to read it.
Other than that, I do _not_ insert links and footnotes and citations into every blog post. The footnotes would outnumber the paragraphs if not the sentences.
Should I link to Alan Kay every time I discuss objects? How is that different? Or for that matter, if someone discusses the signal-to-noise ratio in programming language idioms, must they mention a post I wrote that was popular at the time?
And FYI, I have written about Blub and linked to Paul's essay as well as written about Blub without linking to Paul's essay. You are right, the two things are exactly the same and I have treated them the same way.
I choose to link or cite when I think it improves the reader's experience. In this case, I didn't think so, and after re-reading AVi's post, I still don't think a link belongs in my post. You could force it in, perhaps by adding a post script "If you find this interesting, you may also like..." or by adding a parenthetical remark "(TAWDry languages have other benefits, like...)."
But you know, that isn't what you are arguing. You do not appear to be arguing that a citation would improve the user experience of the post. Or at least, that's not how it reads. Your comment reads like I have written a scholarly paper and violated the rules of citation. Is that really what you are saying here?
There is a saying that I will attribute to Jerry Kaplan (since I read it in the forward to his book "Startup"):
"Your ideas will go further if you don't insist on going along with them."
Avi hasn't emailed to insist that he go along with that metaphor. Which is probably part of why it is spreading.