Blogs and scholarly publications, literature search and Google

[Searcher]

If I may sum up, I think we are all in agreement that prior subject matter should be quoted where-ever possible. Notwithstanding that, it may be a little heavy handed to demand rigorous standards of academic professionalism from people posting on their personal blogs.

But we should always remember to post sources as much as possible. Apart from anything else, it makes our job of convincing the reader much easier, as we are able to draw upon the work of other people to bolster our own case.

David, it is true that links and sources, if not must to be, but are very desirable, even for those who post their articles. The memory sometimes does a bad turn, no one can remember everything . Besides of it, it is good for readers and for those who searches a picture in the internet. For example, I hate, if I find a needed picture, but all sights or blogs place it without a data about its source. I don't know whether you saw my blog or not, but I can say that I have missed to point two sources of my comparisons to the VMs fragments which were added the next morning, moreover, my comparisons were updated according to my current observations. 
Not to point to sources or authors of quotes or rephrased quotes from books or articles and posts is quite another thing. There are many undoubtful, well known and official sources at our disposal wich, of course, must be mentioned in the post. But it doesn't concern personal conclusions of researcher, even, if they coincide or agree with someone's idea. Usually, such idea itself is absolutely not the main thing: alchemical, herbal, astrological; Manichean, alien, Italian, German - it doesn't matter at all. It doen't solve any problem, these all are suppositions and speculations if they are not corroborated by the whole idea, theory, if it is not equiped with explanations and analysis. 
If you will take a look at my blogposts, you will see that all quotes, all sources and links are present, more than enough. I don't think that I must quote and poin to those who think and thought before me that the manuscript, for example, may have an alchemical context as this is not news in my post, it is not the general idea. Truly, I didn't thought that it can be alchemical at the beginning. This idea has appeared only in view of my observations and comparisons, so it is not logical to point that my idea about alchemical context has appeared because people say so.
Diane wrote:

The aim is to help the study advance, by making clear where we got a particular idea about the manuscript

Thus, Diane may be unworried as I didn't quote anyone's own theory at all, I mentioned only my thought and well known generally formulated suppositions, discussed many times and suggested by many people in forums, blogs, Yale library description and Wikipedia without certain names, but with the point that it was supposed by many researchers earlier.