No, it's to link so that the original provider gets credit. Like when I linked to the FT thread when I had the SEZ-DUB mistake fare post. If I didn't, I should be up on that list as well. :)

More so if they quote, not necessary for a mention.

By which I mean the actual Hyperlinking is actually a courtesy amongst bloggers, just mentioning the name without the link is acceptable, but does not aid SEO in the form of traffic routing inbound from that article plus alexa rankings based upon inbound links.

Google PR applies also- links from sites with PR higher than your own also increase your PR and Alexa score the association.

I know just enough about SEO to get that it might piss other bloggers off to not get a link.

But is that really something readers want or need to know? How does it affect a reader's experience of that blog, in the way censorship or affiliate embedding does?

Seems like more of a topic for a thread on 'which bloggers do not conform to SEO etiquette?' @:-)

Yeah- it's a different thing, dude is just pissed and trying to sling some mud back... Might be a valid point (I'm not sure of the example he is referring to) but its not relevant to censorship.

Yes, providing links improves the blog rankings, the more links the higher the rankings!

Seeing my blog name up there in another category is certainly amusing! May I add Proudly to that line? :)

I'm surprised you think of it so much as "inside baseball". It's pretty basic SEO. I remember way back in the day when we all used altavista.com for searching, the big change that google brought in which made it's results more compelling was ranking it's results based on how popular a particular website was, and a big measure of the popularity was the number of other sites that referred to it. Google has basically been evolving and refining this methodology ever since to counter "manufactured" linking, but the idea that more links = more clicks is what google was built on

It's very telling that DP's reaction to TBB not linking his terrible content is "you should be linking to my terrible content" and not "how can I improve my content so that he will link to it", or even "actually, my content isn't terrible because....."

Thank you TBB for helping out bloggers when they provide quality content by linking your readers to them, and conversely, thank you for not linking to bloggers when they provide poor content

H/T's are when you are writing about a deal that you found elsewhere. I.E. if Gary is writing about a 100% US Airways promo that he saw on Lucky's site, he'll H/T Lucky

You're not copying DP's content.... you're critiquing it. It's not something that requires (or deserves) a H/T

Thank you "the hotel bar" (love it) for the kind words. You don't sound angry to me at all:)

TBB aims to inspire all bloggers to write posts that are worthy (it is an art) and I would LOVE to feature the links to! Not a science but I think I am being fair. TBB also aims to educate and, most importantly, entertain ^

I would have a drink with you...at the hotel bar of course :D

I now definitely need to go to sleep.

ummm a link back isn't required in order to quote someone's "copyrighted" work. all that's needed is the source being given. which is done, without fail. anything else sounds like whining - ironic since i believe DP.com has been on record saying it "proudly" censors and controls the content of the blog and the comments. Given that, i should be surprised that DP.com would care so much how others control their content, but (un)suprisingly I am not.

But, since the wiki was added to include that inane category, i've added one as well. If the one added by DP.com is relevant to this wiki, then so is mine.

Once again, I will point out that DP.com will censor any comment that calls into question any aspect of the post - including comments that are made professionally, comments that tell the reader of a better deal, and comments that point out errors and misinformation in the post.

I would second all these comments

And just in case it wasn't clear previously, to reiterate the Delta Points blog censors comments that tell the reader of a better deal no matter how professionally made. In other words, the Delta Points blog censors comments directly to the benefit of it's own financial needs at the COST of it's readers.

But I would like to request that all references to back-links be removed from this wiki and this thread. It has nothing to do with the question in hand, which is which blogs censor comments (and the Delta Points blog is one of the most egregious examples of blogs that censor comments). If back-links is a discussion worthy topic, then can we please have a separate thread for it, so that it cannot be used as some tool to try and dilute the argument against egregious censoring, such as that seen on the Delta Points blog.

I have edited the wiki accordingly. Feel free to open a new thread on blogger SEO. Splitting off posts from this thread will be rather cumbersome.

Regards Oliver2002
Mod EM&PR

I actually would prefer that part gets keeped

If TBB is ok with his name being there under that heading (and why shouldn't he be? It's not an insult), I think it actually does far more to highlight the desperation and deflection of DP than it does knock TBB

DP originally trying to edit the wiki saying he censors comments because it's a PG13 blog are comical

Is he suggesting that Gary's, Lucky's, FM's, Loyalty Travel's and other blogs that don't censor aren't age-appropriate for some

"man, that blog is filthy. We need to update the parental controls on Timmy's computer so that he can't go to viewfromthewing.com"

- said no parent, ever

while i agree with your sentiment at the end, i don't agree and i can't see how you can justify keeping it in this thread as it has nothing to do with censoring comments. it can find a home elsewhere and if anyone really cares about it, it will have it's own life there

Thanks to the mod for cleaning up the wiki. Two categories is perfectly fine.

I was not okay for my blog name to be there with that ridiculous title but I did find it amusing.

Yeah, I also agree we need a separate thread about them backlinks and SEO stuff!

that made me laugh...a lot, thanks!

From the looks of the comments on it, doesn't look like it needs it's own threads as everyone seems to agree you are well within your rights (both legally and morally) to not link when commenting on it

I don't think even DP cares so much as he's just trying to deflect the discussion from censoring. For obvious reasons.