It's actually pretty easy to abuse (in a general sense -- for bibliographic references, or blog pingback (or whatever the hell they call them)) -- you link to a highly scored article, in order to draw more attention to your own article by someone doing a literary search. Some of the citation tracking systems will rank the quality of the link, to use in weighting reverse links. (eg, if someone cited the article 12 times and only cited 10 articles total, that should carry more weight that someone who cites in once along with 80 other articles).
Typically, where I've seen problem is that because people know about the whole 'reference counting' thing, they intentionally cite ALL of their previous articles, no matter how relevant it really is to the current article. When you only get 1-2 articles per year, and publishing affects your income, some folks will do anything to draw more attention to their research.
For perlmonks, though, I personally think that the issue won't be as bad due to the reputation system (we can always -- nodes if people think someone's abusing the system), and I think that the benefits would outweigh the potential risk.
-
Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
-
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big>
<blockquote> <br /> <dd>
<dl> <dt> <em> <font>
<h1> <h2> <h3> <h4>
<h5> <h6> <hr /> <i>
<li> <nbsp> <ol> <p>
<small> <strike> <strong>
<sub> <sup> <table>
<td> <th> <tr> <tt>
<u> <ul>
-
Snippets of code should be wrapped in
<code> tags not
<pre> tags. In fact, <pre>
tags should generally be avoided. If they must
be used, extreme care should be
taken to ensure that their contents do not
have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent
horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor
intervention).
-
Want more info? How to link
or How to display code and escape characters
are good places to start.
|
