3 ms·
My thoughts exactly. Out of those 20 links, the author expressly asked the reader to click at least one link to understand his point. And that was a link to a p
by Entlin 16y ago
My thoughts exactly. Out of those 20 links, the author expressly asked the reader to click at least one link to understand his point. And that was a link to a picture that a good article could have easily embedded inside his article.
I guess without proper "paid" media, articles of this quality is all we get.
- cjoh 16y agoIt's a matter of preference I suppose. Ultimately, I tend to keep images out and stick with links because it gives users more control. I feel like a big image there will have everyone rushing to see the screenshot, whereas someone can open it up in a new window to get the point with minimal flow distraction. Regardless, I use links because I think I ought to be doing you the service of linking to my original sources -- usually well founded research -- rather than just presuming that I'm to be trusted. A link isn't distracting. You clicking on it is. We need articles with more links to background information, not less. See: http://infovegan.com/2010/06/19/bloggers-and-bills http://infovegan.com/2010/06/19/bloggers-and-bills
- dieterrams 16y agoI appreciate links to sources, but links are definitely distracting. Even if you don't click on it, a link forces your mind to imagine what's at the other end of that link and make a decision about whether it's worth clicking on. If you frequently link to many sources within a single post, it might be better to use superscripts and link to sources at the bottom (which, incidentally, is how PG does it). These are still distracting, but considerably less so when they're used exclusively for citations, as opposed to digressions.