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:

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.

• I am against this. It'll be mainly noise on arXiv. – quid Jul 11 '16 at 16:47
• @quid That may be - but I would ask you to consider the quality of the recent trackbacks against the recent arXiv mentions on this site. It is not meant to be any sort of equivalent to a traditional cited by... mechanism like the ones on Google Scholar or Web of Science. – E.P. Jul 11 '16 at 16:59
• Not sure what value this meta post has considering there is already a request on meta.SE. It's the same devs for both sites, you know, this won't bring the change more quickly. (In any case I would like to see some statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who even knew, let alone used, the trackback system was very small.) – Najib Idrissi Jul 11 '16 at 17:00
• I am not sure what your point is. In math, it seems like most of the trackbacks are from MO. I am also not thrilled about MO trackbacking, by the way. But in the end I agree with @NajibIdrissi Hardly anyone seems to care about that mechanism anyway. So much so that there are variedly expressed regrets (I do not share) one cannot comment on arXiv papers and something should be done about this. While actually it'd be perfectly possible via this mechanism except no-one seems to care. – quid Jul 11 '16 at 17:10
• Thanks for pointing out and explaining the Meta.SE request. There are a few posts where I discuss/link to arXiv papers to an extent that a trackback item might rise above the level of noise. I knew about these vaguely but had never thought of adding to the lists. – hardmath Jul 14 '16 at 12:26

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 , 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.

• I don't agree that the Highlight.js case is at all comparable - there the team explicitly looked at the performance and declared unfit; similarly, most status-declined feature requests tend to have technical or other reasons that rule them out, which is not the case here. It's a question of priorities, and while a show of community support for the feature won't immediately bring it about, it should help bring it forward on the list of things to do. – E.P. Jul 12 '16 at 9:48