(via) format

November 17, 2005 9:23 AM

I think the "(via)" cuteness is not as useful as "(via BoingBoing)", just to give a common example. Frequently, I'll think "is this the link I already saw, or another one on the same topic?" and having to actually mouseover to find out is just too strenuous.

Is it just me?
posted by Aknaton to Etiquette/Policy at 9:23 AM (63 comments total)

yes.
posted by Quartermass at 9:27 AM on November 17, 2005

Eh. I guess I have to agree with you. If I see "(via)", I hardly ever bother to look; if I were scanning the page and evaluating based on source, it would matter. Hard to say, because I don't scan for source, I scan for content. I tend not to consider the source until I've parsed the content as interesting. You seem to parse them simultaneosly.

(That said, the potential of title attributes is rarely exploited to its fullest....)
posted by lodurr at 9:27 AM on November 17, 2005

having to actually mouseover to find out is just too strenuous.

I'm sorry. Thats just too funny to not italicize and acknowledge. I'm not too sure what you mean. Are you saying you'd rather see [via insertsitehere] rather than [via...]?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:28 AM on November 17, 2005

That strenuous quote is classic, but I have to agree, mostly for the reason that it makes the post more easily searchable.
posted by nomad at 9:33 AM on November 17, 2005

I prefer a small [via] and interested parties can mouseover to see where it came from. Putting in [via Some Blog Name Goes Here] can dominate a post's text and take away from what you were trying to say in the first place.

So I think it's just you that is too lazy to move a mouse a few pixels here and there. What about all that extra scrolling you have to do because of the extra words on a page making it longer? Going with just [via] means less scrolling, less lazy mouse use.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:33 AM on November 17, 2005

[via ...] is so last century. [via] is not much more progressive.
posted by mischief at 9:36 AM on November 17, 2005

In theory, I think the source of a MeFi link (the "via") would (should?) be an interesting link that, like the rest of the links in a good FPP, backs up the central idea (and is perhaps some source that not a lot of people are aware of).

In theory. In practice, it's all boingboing.
posted by tpl1212 at 9:53 AM on November 17, 2005

People have bitched in the past about citing any orginal source at all, and others have bitched about not citing sources. If you put "(via BoingBoing)," some people will bitch because they assume that since they read BoingBoing everybody reads BoingBoing. Now you're bitching about people putting just "via."

Suggested technical solution: add two fields to the posting form, one for the URL of the original source and one for the source name, so the template could produce "[via BoingBoing]" automatically, just like "more inside" works.

Suggested nontechnical solution: quit bitching.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:55 AM on November 17, 2005

Oops, I guess I should have made my point to be on-topic: I am "pro-verbosely-mentioning-the-source-link-in-the-FPP" for the theoretical reasoning above.
posted by tpl1212 at 9:56 AM on November 17, 2005

You find mousing over strenuous? And yet you somehow dug deep within yourself to find the strength to write this post up and submit it? Damn. You feeling okay? Want me to get you a glass of water? Back rub? You know, you're looking a little peaked. I think maybe you should take the rest of the day off. No, don't thank me. Go on, you deserve it.
posted by quantumetric at 10:02 AM on November 17, 2005

"(via BoingBoing)" is never, ever, EVER appropriate.
posted by crunchland at 10:06 AM on November 17, 2005

I agree with kirkaracha's non-technical solution.

kirkaracha's technical solution is just ripe for abuse by self-via-linking jackholes.
posted by cortex at 10:10 AM on November 17, 2005

Web content should be written as if the hyperlinks weren't there. So yes, if you're crediting your source, do so in the text. However, it isn't necessary to quote a site the size of Boing Boing as a source, really.
posted by nthdegx at 10:11 AM on November 17, 2005

Web content should be written as if the hyperlinks weren't there.

Why limit the medium in such a manner?

[via] is fine.
posted by frykitty at 10:20 AM on November 17, 2005

crunchland has it right.
posted by sdrawkcab at 10:23 AM on November 17, 2005

Well, we could make an appeal to authority, here. If we were to follow Bruce Tognazzini's* rules, we'd say that everyone should include the whole word so that users don't have to "scrub" the links to get the content.

Expecting the users to scrub the links is poor usability for several reasons: It decreases initial parseability by removing information; it slows down parsing by requiring hte user to initiate a set of manual actions (moving mouse pointer, eye-tracking to spot) as opposed to one manual action (eye-tracking over entire page); and it also slows down the retrieval of information due to a browser limitation (title attr popups are usually delayed).

So, personally, aesthetics aside, giving the name of the source is clearly a better usability practice. Yes, it's better than the minimal amount of extra scrolling that might be required on a page where all FPPs would generate a newline given this practice.

But is it a big deal? Clearly not.
--
* ... because I know better than to cite Nielsen, here.
posted by lodurr at 10:31 AM on November 17, 2005

Although it has never bothered my enough to gripe about, I agree with Aknaton, for purely utilitarian reasons. I suspect that:

AB > C

where A is the amount of time spent mousing over for any given user, B is the total number of users who mouse over, and C is the amount of time it takes the original poster to type out the name of the site where he found the link.

BONUS GAME: Can you count the number of ways in which I have just sounded like an anal-retentive geek? Hint: it's at least 3.
posted by yankeefog at 10:31 AM on November 17, 2005

Why limit the medium in such a manner?

Readability?
posted by lodurr at 10:31 AM on November 17, 2005

MetaTalk: the tedium is the message.
posted by GuyZero at 10:33 AM on November 17, 2005

I don't like it when people post 20 comments down the thread "via soandso?" like they're all clever for knowing where this person got it from. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but I think it should be up to each poster whether they want to cite their sources. Everything here is "via" something as self-linking is disallowed.
posted by Eideteker at 10:38 AM on November 17, 2005

I would only add a [via: insert link] if I think the link is worth a look, too.
posted by gsb at 10:53 AM on November 17, 2005

Hot towel?
posted by Captaintripps at 10:56 AM on November 17, 2005

I think the "(via)" cuteness is not as useful as "(via BoingBoing)"...

I don't think it's "cuteness." I think posting "via" as a hyperlink (with or without an embedded title) uses technology to achieve brevity, to say more with less. I think it's a good thing, and I don't agree with your attempt to change it.

My two cents...
posted by cribcage at 11:19 AM on November 17, 2005

You know, you coulda just said "No", cribcage.
posted by Plutor at 11:24 AM on November 17, 2005

I agree with Akhnaton (or, to be precise, with lodurr's more sensible expansion on Akhnaton's badly phrased point): spell out the source. There's such a thing as too much brevity.
posted by languagehat at 11:29 AM on November 17, 2005

*peels grape for Akhnaton*
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:38 AM on November 17, 2005

Brevity schmevity. Linking with only the word via takes more processing time for your brain because you have to a) parse a nonsensical statement and b) do a mouse-over to see if you think you might want to click the link. It's so much easier to have the source named: well worth the one in six or seven times this will cause the post to run into the extra line, and that extra line is well worth the extra readability and accessibility. Anyone that takes writing for the web at all seriously should look into accessibility, and writing plays a part in that. Why use any words in your post at all when you can link to something containing that information? Why is citing your source any different?

We can and do bemoan poor web design til the cows come home, but somehow it is more than okay to write unclear passages. This includes adding your hyperlinks to parts of the text so that you can tell from the text what the hyperlinks link to, and not just link random words. MetaFilter is good at not using the dread "click here" for the linked text, but if the linked text doesn't make sense (including a stand alone "via") then it really isn't an improvement.

Not all posts have to be this way, but if they aren't I think there should be a reason.
posted by nthdegx at 11:49 AM on November 17, 2005

*wishes CunningLinguist was peeling a grape for me*
posted by OmieWise at 11:51 AM on November 17, 2005

It's optional anyway so standardizing it seems quixotic.
posted by scarabic at 11:53 AM on November 17, 2005

...having to actually mouseover to find out is just too strenuous

Jesus Christ in a sidecar. That has to be a joke. Matt's already changing diapers on his own baby.
posted by marxchivist at 11:53 AM on November 17, 2005

Most via's are a waste of space so lets keep making them as small as possible.
posted by Mitheral at 11:54 AM on November 17, 2005

Dude, clean your mouse gliders, moving your mouse shouldn't be very strenuous at all. I've been tempted to drop the "via" and just go with "." as the link to where I found something.
posted by fenriq at 12:12 PM on November 17, 2005

It was actually after I posted this that I regretted it and decided spelling out the name of the source was too long, and switched to using a hyperlinked "[via]."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:15 PM on November 17, 2005

... standardizing it seems quixotic.

It would be, but: Who's standardizing? Couldn't do it if we wanted to. Some people think clear-text readability is more important; others favor "brevity", whatever they mean by that.

FWIW, I submit that the vast majority of users most likely don't ever bother to mouseover that solo "via", even when they chime in here to support it. They parse the page visually, and judge it without reference to the missing information. (I.e., the stuff in the title attributes.)

Only an eye-tracking study would show for sure, and no one here has the resources to do that. I'm curious about the results, but... .
posted by lodurr at 12:24 PM on November 17, 2005

MetaFilter: Having to actually mouseover to find out is just too strenuous.
posted by fixedgear at 12:35 PM on November 17, 2005

It was actually after I posted this that I regretted it and decided spelling out the name of the source was too long, and switched to using a hyperlinked "[via]."

Are you kidding? I loved seeing "[via The Curvature of the Earth is Overwhelmed by Local Noise]" and can't believe anyone would prefer a simple bland [via]. To each his own, but that's just weird.
posted by languagehat at 12:44 PM on November 17, 2005

I would recommend an AJAX based flobjugation coupled Ruby link which does a PHP on rails hovering effect with marquee style scrolling added in.

See my podcast for details
posted by poppo at 12:51 PM on November 17, 2005

... but that's just weird.

Sometimes clarity is just weird. Man.

hmm.... local noise... hmm... big ... small .... noise... hmm.....
posted by lodurr at 12:55 PM on November 17, 2005

note that the trailing (via) is part of the style of Making Light, where the link was found. I assumed the use of TNH's form was merely homage.
posted by eriko at 1:20 PM on November 17, 2005

Just mouse over it, you lazy bastards.
posted by graventy at 1:21 PM on November 17, 2005

i'm always in favor of the title atribute...a couple days ago there was really long on the FPP page that i thought was sweet (the $100 laptop one)...

as for the extra effort, i'm trying to lose a few pounds anyway, so i consider the mouseover part of a well-rounded workout plan...
posted by troybob at 1:23 PM on November 17, 2005

i keep telling myself i'll use title attributes on everything i post here, but i forget
posted by troybob at 1:25 PM on November 17, 2005

nthdegx: Linking with only the word via takes more processing time for your brain because you have to a) parse a nonsensical statement and b) do a mouse-over to see if you think you might want to click the link.

Are you seriously complaining about having to slightly move your hand and think more?

We can and do bemoan poor web design til the cows come home, but somehow it is more than okay to write unclear passages.

I think any blind people upset by our lack of regard for web standards would be much more upset by uninformative one word links than not knowing the exact source a link came from. If I link to this in a post or comment, you have to mousover it just to find out what the hell I'm talking about. [via] is trivial.
posted by kyleg at 1:32 PM on November 17, 2005

For God's sake people, its called grey text!!!!
That's all.
posted by wheelieman at 1:37 PM on November 17, 2005

Fuck the lenth of an attribution string. That's not the problem. The problem is every fucking dickhead who saw the link somewhere else and thinks it's his/her right to add attribution for the poster.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:43 PM on November 17, 2005

"right" may not be what I meant. They think it some kind of web protocol imperative that an attribution be added.

Fuckers.

Fuck.

(yes, i've been drinking)
posted by eyeballkid at 1:44 PM on November 17, 2005

Are you seriously complaining about having to slightly move your hand and think more?

Thank you for providing such a concise illustration of tech macho bullshit. Otherwise, how would we know what pathetic creatures we are -- we who fail to scrub every link on every page that we viist? We are not worthy to share your internets. Let us be humbled in your presence.
posted by lodurr at 2:02 PM on November 17, 2005

eyeballkid, honestly, I don't care whether they attribute or not. All I'm saying is that if they do, the attribution is more usable if it's in text, instead of being stuffed into a title attribute.

.... and dude, it's only Thursday. And it's only 5:00 here on the east coast. And.... well, just dont' drive, mkay? And don't let your boss see you when you come in late tomorrow.
posted by lodurr at 2:06 PM on November 17, 2005

yes, i've been drinking

That reminds me of what Lincoln said when people complained about General Grant's drinking:

Find out what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals.

posted by kirkaracha at 2:08 PM on November 17, 2005

eyeballkid: "The problem is every fucking dickhead who saw the link somewhere else and thinks it's his/her right to add attribution for the poster."

via Eideteker?
posted by Plutor at 2:27 PM on November 17, 2005

"Are you seriously complaining about having to slightly move your hand and think more?"

When scanning for info I think I'm personally going to take value from on just one of many websites, damn straight. I want to do my thinking about the content I've decided I want, not in unnecessary extra effort in finding it.

You're right, it's no worse than linking the word "this", which is pretty much what I said in my previous comment. Unless you have good reason not to, make your post as easy to understand as possible. It's sheer common sense. Brevity is not brevity if it is to the point of obfuscation.
posted by nthdegx at 2:40 PM on November 17, 2005

What eyeballkid said. The first time, not the second.

Actually, both times.
posted by dg at 2:51 PM on November 17, 2005

via Eideteker?

Plutor made me laugh!
posted by scarabic at 3:16 PM on November 17, 2005

And don't let your boss see you when you come in late tomorrow.

He'd understand. I was drinking with him.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:33 PM on November 17, 2005

I never post any links, but if I did post a link I would not bother including a "via" unless I found it on a site that I did not think anybody would know about AND that I thought deserved to be linked here itself.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:37 PM on November 17, 2005

Aknaton should let me know who Aknaton is if we are in fact acquaintance-met-colleagues.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:53 PM on November 17, 2005

The whole via nonsense is mostly unnecessary. But if you must, it would be best placed in the first comment. Don't waste valuable frontpage space with silly words like via. Ideally, don't waste frontpage space on words with three letters or less. This includes "the."
posted by panoptican at 4:06 PM on November 17, 2005

It's okay, Plutor. I'm used to people not reading my comments around here. It's because my name isn't quonsar, I know. I'm a nobody. Except I'm not nobody. If I was, I'd be somebody.
posted by Eideteker at 4:37 PM on November 17, 2005

[via] is common courtesy. Many people in these end times of ours believe common courtesy to be unnecessary.

Use anything other than square brackets for your tip of the hat, though, and I'll cut your eyeballs out with spoons.

Especially eyeballkid!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:46 PM on November 17, 2005

VIA
posted by Robot Johnny at 11:07 PM on November 17, 2005

As usual I have competing thoughts about this. Purely for the aesthetics, I prefer to see [via]. If I like the link I will move my mouse out of curiosity. Or just out of curiosity. I find words that aren't directly about the content to be (ever so slightly) distracting.

In a practical sense, I use [via] when I want to gently acknowledge the source. But when that [via] has contributed a lot and not just carried the link, then I reckon they deserve a shoutout with full text attribution. If some site has obviously spent hours painstakingly accumulating links about a subject that I then repost here, they really really deserve to have their work acknowledged.

None of this matters much of course. But I do like attribution. Coz you can ask members directly for sources and come up empty, so the subtle method of seeing places people go for their posting links with [via] can indirectly introduce me to new stuff.
posted by peacay at 11:17 PM on November 17, 2005

"[via] is common courtesy."

Maybe in your world... ;-P
posted by mischief at 11:44 PM on November 17, 2005

I like finding link aggregators. More via, either way.
posted by MetaMonkey at 6:18 AM on November 18, 2005