Please consider supporting arXiv trackbacks on the mother Meta

Question

One long-standing feature requests for the Stack Exchange engine is the implementation of trackbacks for mentions of the arXiv on Stack Exchange sites. In general, if you have a blog and you blog about an arXiv eprint, you can send the arXiv a specially crafted http message, and then your blog gets listed on a page of the form

http://arXiv.org/tb/paper-id

that lists a bunch of internet locations that discuss the eprint. Some more examples of how this works:

• Example: Here is a list of trackbacks to the arXiv preprint arXiv:0905.2658 from various blogs. My feature-request is that if a future SE post mentions an arXiv number, say, arXiv:0905.2658, then a trackback is automatically sent to the arXiv.org who then adds the SE post to the trackback list.

• Example: This SE answer mentions the arXiv preprint arXiv:0707.2895. With trackbacks to the arXiv, it would be possible to see on the corresponding trackback list that this preprint is mentioned on SE.

• More Examples: (SE question, arXiv preprint, trackback list); (SE question, arXiv preprint, trackback list).

For recent trackbacks from across the internet to the whole of arXiv, see http://arxiv.org/tb/recent.

The trackback mechanism was implemented and put online on MathOverflow in 2013, and it has been ticking along ever since. A feature request was posted at about that time on Meta Stack Exchange to enable this across all the science Stack Exchange sites, at

Trackbacks from SE to the arXiv.org?

It has received a lot of love over the years (currently at score 62) but apparently this has not been enough. So: do you think this mechanism should be enabled on this site? If so, either post an answer here saying Aye, or go show that feature-request some (more) love.

Answer 1

This feature request already has fairly substantial support of the wider SE community. Not only that, but there is support from at least two SE employees. In a comment Tim Post stated

I'm going to look into this, I can't see how it would be a bad idea, and it's being a good netizen for going the extra mile to indicate that a paper was cited. The PR value is nice, but doing the 'right thing' is a fine motivation alone.

Pops's very recent answer (posted just minutes after this current question was) echoes this sentiment.

Unfortunately, support, either from the SE community or SE employees, is not always sufficient to see a feature request implemented. In that same answer Pops says

It's the usual story: too many good ideas, not enough time to implement them all. And even if there weren't other feature requests and bugs to compete with, larger projects have been taking up a lot of the company's collective time for a while now, and probably will continue to do so for a while longer.

The good news (for those that support it) is that the feature request is not status-declined, as happens not infrequently to even well-received feature requests (e.g., Highlight.js: For Real, Please, which at this moment is scored +128/-0, as well as any from this search).

All of this is to say that further upvotes on the feature request are unlikely to see it implemented any sooner.