---
title: "Reply to: My approach to running a link blog"
url: https://perrotta.dev/2025/01/reply-to-my-approach-to-running-a-link-blog/
last_updated: 2026-03-02
---


Simon Willison's ["My approach to running a link blog"](https://simonwillison.net/2024/Dec/22/link-blog/):

> — I always include the names of the people who created the content I am
> linking to, if I can figure that out. Credit is really important, and it's
> also useful for myself because I can later search for someone's name and
> find other interesting things they have created that I linked to in the
> past. If I've linked to someone's work three or more times I also try to
> notice and upgrade them to a dedicated tag.
>
> — I always include the names of the people who created the content I am
> linking to, if I can figure that out. Credit is really important, and it's
> also useful for myself because I can later search for someone's name and
> find other interesting things they have created that I linked to in the
> past. If I've linked to someone's work three or more times I also try to
> notice and upgrade them to a dedicated tag.
>
> — A slightly self-involved concern I have is that I like to prove that I've
> read it. This is more for me than for anyone else: I don't like to recommend
> something if I've not read that thing myself, and sticking in a detail that
> shows I read past the first paragraph helps keep me honest about that.
>
> — I try to add something extra. My goal with any link blog post is that if you
> read both my post and the source material you'll have an enhanced experience
> over if you read just the source material itself.

[John Gruber](https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/01/02/willisons-approach-to-running-a-link-blog):

> Every step of the way, I found myself nodding my head, thinking to myself, I
> do that too! — right down to creating tags for people after I've mentioned
> their work or simply credited their bylines a few times. (The difference is
> that Willison seemingly isn't a procrastinator, and I am, so my decades of
> tagging aren't yet exposed to anyone but me.)

Such a great philosophy to foster the [IndieWeb](https://indieweb.org/) in a
positive way.

As I've been slowly shaping up the workflow of my own blog, this is the kind of
post I appreciate to read and learn insights from.

Personally I think that running a link blog is exhausting: there are just soooo
many links, and they are a never-ending spiral.

On the other hand, choosing to blog instead of, say, _tweet_, adds a certain
degree of friction in such a way that you tend to implicitly cherry-pick the
links that are more relevant and/or important to you, given the opportunity
cost.

I like that.

> The point of that article was to emphasize that blogging doesn't have to be
> about unique insights. The value is in writing frequently and having something
> to show for it over time—worthwhile even if you don't attract much of an
> audience (or any audience at all).

> In that article I proposed two categories of content that are low stakes and
> high value: things I learned and descriptions of my projects.

I definitely agree that **"TIL Blogs"** ("today I learned") are very low stakes
and high value, thus I've been trying to get into the habit of doing so to
follow suit.

**Describing your own projects** is also a great way to keep them flowing and
keep yourself motivated.

That said, I am not a fan of **"link blogs"**, merely because the web has an
almost infinite number of links: it's a very deep rabbit hole to fall into.
Archiving links in my second brain app is almost as good.