This Is Sooooo Very Difficult To Understand

Let’s begin with this little nugget…

/home/wpcom/public_html/wp-content/blogs.dir/d20/67462000/files/2014/12/img_4607.png

Of course the harrassing cyberthug’s focus is quite narrow.  He wants to know “who sent the email?” And in his typical fashion, as soon as he gets the answer he likes (from the free lawyer chat room, the Christmas Eve Court Clerk, the African-tinged photo editor from NASA, the WordPress Happiness Engineer, the voices in his head, whatever), he determines that his confirmed opinion is truth from God, carved in stone from the mountaintop.  His focus narrows to a pinhole, and like an eclipse box, everything he sees through that pinhole is upside-down and backwards.

Plus, he fails to see anything else.  That apparent belief in his own infallibility, a belief betrayed by years of evidence and failure, so narrows his focus that he misses (or purposely ignores, that is distinctly possible) the suggestion immediately below the answer he’s fallen so in love with.

You can learn more about this here:
http://en.support.wordpress.com/comments/pingbacks/

At that link, we find the following explanation of the pingback:

A pingback is a type of comment that’s created when you link to another blog post where pingbacks are enabled. The best way to think about pingbacks is as remote comments:

  • Person A posts something on his blog.
  • Person B posts on her own blog, linking to Person A’s post. This automatically sends a pingback to Person A when both have pingback enabled blogs.
  • Person A’s blog receives the pingback, then automatically goes to Person B’s post to confirm that the pingback did, in fact, originate there.

Check out the WordPress.org Introduction to Blogging article for a more detailed explanation.

Here’s an interesting angle to consider – what if I take that explanation and replace the names?  Would that make clearer the explanation which Monsieur Mayonnaise clearly did not bother to read?

A pingback is a type of comment that’s created when you link to another blog post where pingbacks are enabled. The best way to think about pingbacks is as remote comments:

  • John posts something on his blog.
  • Park, who is subject to a peace order requiring him not to contact John, posts on his own blog, linking to John’s post. This, Park’s affirmative action of posting a link to John’s blog, automatically sends a pingback to John when both John and Park have pingback enabled blogs, even if there is no way for Park to know whether John’s blog is pingback enabled or not.
  • John’s blog receives the pingback, like a mailbox receiving a letter from the postal service, then automatically goes to Park’s post to confirm that the pingback did, in fact, originate there.

Check out the WordPress.org Introduction to Blogging article for a more detailed explanation.

 

So if Señor Neckroll doesn’t link to Person A’s blog, an affirmative action taken by him, then Person A never gets a pingback.

Eh – what do I know?  I’m just an undead zombie. Your WordPress ways are strange and confusing.  Maybe if there was a way to find a “more detailed explanation…”

Hmm…

Oh, wait!

Check out the WordPress.org Introduction to Blogging article for a more detailed explanation.

I wonder if there is some clearly worded for a Luddite information at that link for someone who’s only been blogging with WordPress for several years?  Let’s find out.

The pingback is generally displayed on Person A’s blog as simply a link to Person B’s post. It is commonly believed that pingbacks do not send any content, as trackbacks do. This is not correct. If you get a pingback, you will see an excerpt from that blog in the Edit Comments section of your dashboard. The issue is that very few themes display these excerpts from pingbacks. The default WordPress themes, for example, do not display pingback excerpts.

In fact, there is only one significant difference between pingbacks and trackbacks: Pingbacks and trackbacks use drastically different communication technologies (XML-RPC and HTTP POST, respectively). But that difference is important because trackbacks have become the target of so much spam. The automatic verification process introduces a level of authenticity, making it harder to fake a pingback.

Some feel that trackbacks are superior because readers of Person A’s blog can at least see some of what Person B has to say, and then decide if they want to read more (and therefore click over to Person B’s blog). Others feel that pingbacks are superior because they create a verifiable connection (could a zombie call this a contact?) between posts.

There are even some technical specifications linked in that article, too.  Definitely not for Luddites.

5. Example

Here is a more detailed look at what could happen between Park and John during the example described in the introduction.

  1. Park posts to his blog. The post he’s made includes a link to a post on John’s blog. The permalink to Park’s new post is http://park.example.org/#p123, and the URL of the link to John’s blog is http://john.example.net/#foo.
  2. Park’s blogging system parses all the external links out of Park’s post, and finds http://john.example.net/#foo.
  3. It then requests the first 5 kilobytes of the page referred to by the link.
  4. It looks for an X-Pingback header, but fails to find one.
  5. It scans this page fragment for thepingback link tag, which it finds:
    <link rel="pingback" href="http://john.example.net/xmlrpcserver">

    If this tag had not been contained in the page, then John’s blog would not support pingback, so Park’s software would have given up here (moving on to the next link found in step 2).

  6. Next, since the link was there, it executes the the following XML-RPC call to http://john.example.net/xmlrpcserver:
    pingback.ping('http://park.example.org/#p123', 'http://john.example.net/#foo')
  7. Park’s blogging system repeats step 3 to 6 for each external link that was found in the post.

There ends the work undertaken by Park’s system, none of which would have taken place without the first affirmative step: Park posts to his blog, including a link to a post on John’s blog. The rest of the work is performed by John’s blog.

  1. John’s blog receives a ping from Alice’s blog (the ping sent in step 6 above), naming http://alice.example.org/#p123 (the site linking to Bob) and http://john.example.net/#foo (the page Park linked to).
  2. John’s blog confirms that http://john.example.net/#foo is in fact a post on this blog.
  3. It then requests the content of http://park.example.org/#p123 and checks the Content-Type of the entity returned to make sure it is text of some sort.
  4. It verifies that this content does indeed contain a link to http://john.example.net/#foo (to prevent spamming of pingbacks).
  5. John’s blog also retrieves other data required from the content of Park’s new post, such as the page title, an extract of the page content surrounding the link to John’s post, any attributes indicating which language the page is in, and so forth.
  6. Finally, John’s post records the pingback in its database, and regenerates the static pages referring to John’s post so that they mention the pingback.

So even when you get down to the technical details, what do we learn, if we’re interested?

It all boils down to this: Idiots gonna be idiots.  If the Baron of Bloviation took 30 goddamn seconds to think about what he was doing, he wouldn’t be facing a show cause hearing and a possible contempt citation because he can’t follow a simple order from the court.

In other words, just your average day.

Like(0)Dislike(0)

AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, I'VE GOT A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN FOR SALE!

I’ve been keeping my peace about this, but let’s look at the facts.

  1. William M. Schmalfeldt filed a horribly botched Answer and Counterclaim and First (and Second) Amended Counterclaim in his ill-fated, woe-begotten, doomed-from-day-one attempt to identify and maliciously prosecute me for some very vague and legally specious charges of libel and some such bullshit. Read all about it in “Cheesinus Fromundies – Intent to Sniff.”
  2. He spent all of his mayonnaise budget for the summer on postage, and was willing to dig into the penicillin and cranberry juice money to pay for subpoenas and processing fees from WordPress and Twitter to smoke me out and persecute me for authoring a genius parody that gave him Jerry Falwell levels of epic butthurt.
  3. Before he even figured out how to affect service on me, he folded like a pup tent in a hurricane. He got nothing, because he’s a cowardly, no-account, shuffling lump of weenie-meat with no guts for a fight he claimed to be spoiling for. He claims victory, yet refuses to look in my direction, when his prayer for relief of $1.500.000 (no that’s no typo – he really did try to sue for twelve bits) results two fingers raised high and proud back at him. He paid his costs, I sat back, pointing, laughing and mocking for most of a summer at no cost to myself.
  4. Continue reading “AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, I'VE GOT A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN FOR SALE!”

Like(0)Dislike(0)