December 28, 2005

Irksome Internet Navel-Gazing from the Crack Young Staff

Another Christmas has come and gone, dear reader, and, as the New Year approaches apace, we find ourselves in a particularly contemplative mood. Frankly, we’re not terribly sure why.

Perhaps it’s the fact that Christmastime television is horrid if you’ve already seen It’s a Wonderful Life three squillion times. Other than that, such fetching programs as “Inside the Certified Public Accountant’s Studio: With James Lipton” besmirch the airwaves. When the best thing on the boob tube is a crusty old Vietnam veteran pontificating about the glories of World War I on “Book TV,” it’s well past time to turn off the set.

Anyway, having moved to our fancy new digs here at MuNu, we have recently expended much mental energy ruminating about the glories and follies of our “weblog.” More specifically, we have been thinking about those well-nigh ubiquitous features of “webloggery,” “comments” and “trackbacks.”

To be dreadfully honest, dear reader, we only semi-learned what “trackbacks” are a few weeks ago. And we’re not entirely sure we understand correctly. More importantly, however, numerous e-eminences previously informed us that “trackbacks” are the key to Internet superstardom. Just add “trackbacks” to your “website” and you’ll become more popular than Fidel Castro at a rally of subscribers to The Nation magazine.

Okay, we figured; since “trackbacks” are the key to the Internet Promised Land, we’ll get our Official Luddite Technical Department to install them. So, after some obligatory fussing and cussing, install them they did.

And…not much happened. Sure, we’ve received a few “trackbacks”: Notably our pals the Llamas and Kathy the Elegant Cakeeater. But most “weblogs” have chosen to “link” to us without “tracking back.” This has left us a bit confused. In the inimitable (though oft imitated) words of that lady from those Wendy’s commercials, “Where’s the beef?” Wasn’t that lady named Walter Mondale?

But we digress. Frankly, this all has compelled us to rethink our position on “comments.” Numerous e-eminences also informed us that “comments” were a necessity for the popular “weblogger.” After all, if you don’t let your readers “comment” on your “posts,” you’ll wind up as unpopular as the Instapundit, who doesn’t allow “comments.” A sad, sad fate indeed.

But, dear reader, we are deeply concerned that umpteen goose eggs in the “trackbacks” and “comments” section will make our “weblog” seem as popular as George W. Bush at a rally of subscribers to The Nation magazine. Nothing says “this ‘weblog’ is mercilessly unpopular” quite like a string of “Comments 0; Trackbacks 0” after each “post.”

In addition, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have enough urgent e-detractors among our e-correspondents that allowing them to “comment” on our “website” may be a nightmare.

What to do? What to do? If we allowed “comments” on our “website,” perhaps we could ask you.

Posted at December 28, 2005 12:01 AM | TrackBack