4

Trackbacks, and related protocols like WebMentions, exist to notify websites when other websites link to them. But the HTTP Referer header does this already, and is baked into the existing stack. So why do people use Trackbacks and other systems like that? How are they better than HTTP Referer header, and how do these benefits compare to the complexity trade-off?

I understand that the Referer header is frequently spoofed by spammers, hoping to get links inserted into web admin dashboards. But the same is true for Trackbacks, and presumably also true for other competing protocols. So unless the primary purpose of these systems is to combat spam in some way, I am guessing spam has nothing to do with it.

Naomi Slater
  • 525
  • 3
  • 11

1 Answers1

0

See Wiki: Linkback. All four common ways are listed there with their pros and cons.

When a blog 'mentions' another blog, this means a special message is sent from the mentioning blog to the original blog. It will usually be sent once, as a notification: "Your blog X has been linked to from blog Y", so now the former blog software can decide to mention this in the post X.

CodeCaster
  • 147,647
  • 23
  • 218
  • 272
  • Looking at the advantages column, I note that most of comments focus on the quality of the spec. For example, Pingback "has a complete technical specification." But that's not a reason to use Pingback. It might be something you consider once you've decided to use it. But we don't use technologies just because they have good specs. I think it boils down to this: HTTP Referer headers put the onus on the linked to site. Trackbacks put the onus on the linking site. Am I missing anything? – Naomi Slater Mar 01 '14 at 12:37
  • They are interchangeablem their purpose is mentioned in the article: _"A linkback is a method for Web authors to obtain notifications when other authors link to one of their documents. This enables authors to keep track of who is linking to, or referring to, their articles."_ – CodeCaster Mar 01 '14 at 12:39
  • 1
    Using something like WebMention, which appears to be the newer protocol, requires additional setup on both the linking site, and the linked to site. This seems brittle and complex. And it seems like the only real benefit it offers is that the linked to site doesn't have to fetch the URL in the HTTP Referer header to parse the title. But this seems like two steps back and one step forward to me. – Naomi Slater Mar 01 '14 at 12:41