Talk:Trackback/Archives/2013

Correct spelling
The article uses three types of spelling for the word: trackback, Trackback and TrackBack. Which one is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.187.245 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pingback and Trackback difference?
Is there a difference between Pingback and Trackback? If not, one page should be a redirect. --Tokek 03:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. It's now noted in the articles. - Mugs 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

They look to be different, but very similar. Maybe a section about the differences? :) Ash Lux 8 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the differences between TrackBack and PingBack, but I did add more detail about TrackBack. Thanks for getting it started! --Swartzer 05:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A Trackback is what you give to someone for them to ping you with when they post an entry about your entry. A Pingback is what you can have your Trackback request from the blog that uses your Trackback URL. The Pingback is used to verify that the person pinging your Trackback URL is a valid webpage. Some blog software allows you to queue pingbacks for approval - moderates them. So - A Trackback is a URL. When used, the Trackback URL receives a copy of the originating server's address. If enbabled, a Pingback is sent to the originating server's URL to verify that it is not a spam Trackback. Many people have circumvented this, and still spam blogs. Now that a law has been passed, though - I'm not sure what will happen with the spam! --John Mann January 13, 2006

I think John Mann babbles, it is rubbish Trackback and Pingback in general do the same, Just follow the links. The difference is in how they make it. For the user the main difference is that there might be multiple trackbacks on a page, which allows fe. to trackback comments or listings. Pingback is just one per page (or source). Technically Pingback is much easier to implement, because it is strict in the specs. Trackback relies on full support for XML. Pingback can be used with nontext sourcess, because it uses http headers. Trackback is only about text. Pingback runs over XML-RPC, Trackback uses pure HTTP and XML. Having said that, I think it is stupid to have two standards for one thing. I would prefer Trackback, because it is more flexible and would like to have HTTP headers support added to it somehow. Robajz

Actually, John Mann does not babble, but you're correct that they do the same thing. The key issue is that they so in different ways which is very important for reducing SPAM (hence the different standards). See the updated article for details. - Mugs 11:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bought Kamagra in the Uk for FREE yes you heard for FREE from http://www.uk-kamagra-viagra.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.195.139.202 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarity
There seems to be a lack of clarity as to the definition of Trackback/Pingback. This article does not do a good job of explaining the concept and the function it performs in many blogs/webpages. 216.249.54.46 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)FM

Why the commercials for Moveable type?
This is ridiculous, the Referer field in the HTTP spec was designed to implement trackbacks in 1992. 6 apart did not invent the concept, only the name, yet this article keeps turning into a commercial for them.

Whoever complained about the "commercials" for Movable Type, could you please sign your name? So far as I know, Movable Type was the first company to actually implement the trackback concept in blogs. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I would welcome hearing it. I mostly mentioned them by name because they were the only company I knew for sure had implemented Trackback. I was new to wikipedia when I made that revision, and have since learned not to make edits without first doing the legwork to make sure I know what I'm talking about. --Swartzer 05:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Miscellany
* Anyone add a list of blog services supporting this? Buguldey 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

* Does Livejournal support this? Buguldey 16:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost every blog out there (way too many to list) supports one form of Linkback or another. - Mugs 11:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Tidying up
There are three types of Linkbacks - Pingbacks, Refbacks, and Trackbacks. Here in Wikipedia, only two were referenced, and there was no article for Linkbacks in General. I created an additional article to represent all three, added some missing material for the two that were in existence, and created the parent article, Linkback.

I propose that we merge Pingback, Refback, and Trackback into a Linkback article, with redirects from each to the Linkback article.

What's your opinion? - Mugs 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

TrackBack and RSS feeds
Maybe the differences between TrackBack and Newsfeed / Aggregator could be explained here as well?

Whats up with this standard
I just read the standard and find it pretty flawed. The examples they give is not valid HTTP 1.1 requests, lacking both host:, content-length and http version specification. Does anyone know of any published criticism of this, as it seems most webservers today would reject one of their suggested examples? --Bergfinnur

Not "physically linked"?
"Trackback does not require the originating site to be physically linked to the receiving site." WTF? As opposed to what? Zin (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(And, BTW, I agree quality of this one is poor, and should be merged into Linkback. Two years already?)

Even non-spam s are annoying clutter
I tried to Google for some article supporting the view that even non-spam s are often annoying clutter, however just using the keyword clutters the results with too many s to be useful. Jidanni (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)