# 220 references to me... Help!

The "incidence structure" topic i wrote today already attracts 221 references from articles written earlier. I've had a quick look, the vast majority appear to be unrelated topics so the links must be spurious.

As i understand the PM philosophy, the onus is on the author of the article(s) linked *to* to clean up their act. Okay, here i am, willing to learn. What do i do?

I had already added four keywords to steer links away from me unless they really mean it, but it doesn't seem to work.

---------------8<------------------------------>8-----------------
Name: incidence structures [will zap that s]

Also defines: design, point, block, block design, $\tau$-design, simple design, square design, symmetric design, tactical decomposition, balanced incomplete block design, BIBD, Steiner system, Steiner triple system, projective plane, finite projective plane

Keywords: incidence, block, plane, design

Cross-references: sum of two squares, theorem, conjecture, power, prime, finite fields, symmetric, parallel, continuous, real, finite, divisibility, partition, complete graphs, regular graphs, graphs, multigraphs, set theory, vertices, hypergraph, iff, subset, disjoint

There are 221 references to this object.
---------------8<------------------------------>8-----------------

--regards, marijke
http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/marijke/

### Re: 220 references to me... Help!

Now you're down to 9 inlinks. Whatever you did seems to have worked =)

Note that altering keywords won't help. These aren't used at all for link steering, just for indexing, which helps searches.

Generally classification is the best way to steer links -- but it won't prevent links that shouldn't be drawn. For this, the world awaits classification-based restrictions in the linking policy system, which are hopefully coming ASAP.

apk