I Boycott Cryptic Links

Notice to writers of online copy:  If you're too lazy to explain the significance of a link, I won't click on it. 

I'm sure I miss out on a lot of great information, but there are plenty of other blogs and web sites out there that make the effort to put their links into context so I have some idea what I might find at the end of the hyperlink.

I've probably already unsubscribed to your blog if your average posting looks like this:

"I saw this today and it reminded me of this."

That's not communication, that's indecipherable shorthand.  You're telling your readers that your time is too valuable for you to explain why they should follow your link.  You're so smart or clever or influential that you don't have to explain your thinking.  People will blindly follow your links and draw their own conclusions.

Give me a break.

If you published magazine articles with headlines that didn't inform the reader why they should read the article, you wouldn't have very many readers after a while.  If you sent e-mails that gave no hint why someone should open the e-mail, you would find your messages get deleted rather than read.

So why do people treat links differently?  A link is an invitation to explore a different information source.  Why would I click on your link if you don't give me some indication why I should go there, and what I will find there?

It's as if the basic rules of publications (use lots of teasers, be clear, always give readers a reason to keep reading) have been abandoned because our publishing tool is electronic.

I have way too many things to do in a day to spend time chasing after information that someone obliquely implies might have some value.  If the reason for clicking on the link isn't obvious from the text of the message, I take a pass.

That's not to say I'm anal about this.  I don't expect a 20-word footnote for every link. I just expect writers to have enough respect for my time that they will give me enough information to decide whether their link will be worthwhile or a waste of my time. In the absence of anything to the contrary, I assume it's a waste of time.

Comments

[Jack Krupansky]

My sentiments exactly.

I would also suggest that the linkee (content creator) deserves proper attribution, and once you've established that discipline (including the author's name, publication/blog/site name, and article title), adding a minimal, terse reason for why you brought up the link is not much more to ask.

-- Jack Krupansky

[Eric Eggertson]

Good point, Jack. I've been experimenting with adding more information when I post links. I find it's often hard to include it in a paragraph, so I now find myself including links at the bottom of the item.

One thing I've noticed is that bloggers seem to be willfully blind to the fact that most mainstream media articles they refer to were researched and written by people. It's much more common to see "In the Los Angeles Times yesterday," instead of "Sandy Mitchelson wrote in the LA Times yesterday..."

[Michael Swartz]

Good points.

I enjoy the way Dave Winer displays his links.

http://www.scripting.com