Last Tuesday, I posted a seemingly inconspicuous entry
on the need to understand the architectural intent of the provider of your SOA
and integration infrastructure. In the
entry, I provided names and links to some thought leaders in the service-oriented
architecture (SOA), integration, and event-driven architecture (EDA) spaces
that I had the opportunity to speak with (and learn their architectural
leanings).
One of those links, for Michael Terner of KnowNow, happened to reference a Jon Udell podcast from
December 2004. And that single (coincidental)
link, made for an interesting day for me on Thursday, when Jon wrote this piece
about Blog
Biology. In it, he describes how he
found me through his sensors (Technorati and his referral log), and how it
makes sense that we would eventually meet given our common interests in SOA and
EDA, but this one oblique link (of mine) expedited that meeting.
Why that link made for an interesting day (days really) for
me is threefold. First, Jon’s “reinforcing the connection” introduced
me to his large readership. Second, one
of my free
works that I am sharing was picked up by ZDNet’s Between the Lines. Third, in a reinforcement of “a cool thing
about my job is I get to talk with a lot of smart people”; I had the
opportunity to chat with Jon this morning about SOA.
Not bad for one link. So, that got me to thinking about blogging and linking. Because for me, technology is most
interesting for what it allows us to do—for our businesses, our lives and
society. [Although, I must admit,
occasionally I’m drawn to a technology because it’s cool.]
On linking, many companies employ “Google Gaming” strategies
for high search placement (results and ads). But, I wondered, can an individual link their way to inclusion? Look at what happened with my one link.
So, if (for the sake of illustration) I started being
intentional (and incessant) in my links, targeting high influence individuals
and communities, would that provide me entry? Or, would my appearance (my URL) on blogosphere sensors become the
equivalent of spam? Forever, relegated
to being filtered out (ouch!)
Gut feel says, the latter…because the overall connection has
to be stronger than the initial (one-way) link. There needs to be relevance for all parties. The blogosphere, after all, is opt-in.
Jon’s post speaks to manufactured
serendipity, which essentially says the technology of the blogosphere makes
the useful discovery of ideas, individuals
and groups less accidental, or somewhat manufactured.
Although these interactions are prompted by technology,
there is still something natural at play. There has to be a reason/force – shared interests, views, friends, or
associations – for any link back, and forward introductions. This is what promotes a one-way link to an
actual connection. Which, in this
instance, were SOA and EDA.
So, I worked myself around to “No, an individual can’t just link
their way to inclusion”. I believe the natural
forces of the blogosphere would protect serendipity despite any manipulation of
the manufacturing. This is good…