4 ms·
Exactly, not a single link to the site. Had to google and find: Here it is just in case: https://arxiv.org/ https://arxiv.org/
by mohsinr 10y ago
Exactly, not a single link to the site. Had to google and find: Here it is just in case: https://arxiv.org/ https://arxiv.org/
- vanderZwan 10y agoWelcome to modern web articles, where every link points back to more articles of the same website. For example: > As one of the first open access science sites, this redesign may influence the paths of its younger siblings, like biologists’ bioRxiv whether they follow the same route or rebel against it. There's a link in the article.. which links to a Wired article on bioRxiv[0], but not to bioRxiv[1] itself. And before you ask: no, the article on bioRxiv does not link to bioRxiv. [0] http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-rainbow-unicorn-trying-real-hard-to-transform-biology-publishing/ http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-rainbow-unicorn-trying-real... [1] http://biorxiv.org/ http://biorxiv.org/
- aschampion 10y agoMy favorite is pop science reporting never linking to the press release for the publication that it's pulling from, much less to the publication itself. Often the title of the article isn't even mentioned.
- PascalsMugger 10y agoCan't let that precious link juice spill out to other websites! Don't you remember link juice? Bullshit SEO tactics are killing the web.
- jaytaylor 10y agoAgreed, the juice stinginess is lame. They could've at least added a useful outbound link with rel="nofollow" to be helpful while avoiding leaking any of their precious juice.