Comments on: Too many links in post

Too many links in post

Spoon — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 06:31:52 -0800

How many links does a front page post have before they become irritating ?

By: majick

majick — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:06:12 -0800

As far as I'm concerned, it's not the number of links, it's the usability of them. Immediately adjacent links with different hrefs have very few interface cues about their behavior (fewer still for browsers that don't support hovering) unless you scrub the whole row with the pointer, and playing hunt-and-click isn't my idea of a good time.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:32:13 -0800

The more, the merrier. (As long as they are supporting)

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:55:08 -0800

Don't like 'em? Don't click 'em.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:56:21 -0800

50 to 100 is annoying...mkay?

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:58:47 -0800

I agree with ColdChef. As long as they support the thread, there's not really a problem. For example, this thread on MeFi a while back left me in awe {damn, there's a whole lotta linkin' going on}. However, this one on MeTa didn't.

By: dogmatic

dogmatic — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:01:20 -0800

Hey guys!

How annoying can I be before I get really annoying?

--Spoon

By: Spoon

Spoon — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:07:10 -0800

I can be much much more annoying than this.
PS. Dogmatic - when i read your post I imagined that you looked like the comic book guy.

By: jennak

jennak — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:10:43 -0800

I agree w/ Spoon. A post in which every letter (or word) is a link creates a problem for the reader because it's not apparent which links are the most important and best resources on the subject. As a result, the reader will either clicking through 10+ links to try to determine what the poster's point (even notice that the hyper-hyperlinked posts are also usually cryptically worded?), or will simply skip over the post. I usually go with the latter choice.

This is MetaFilter, right? I can google around and find a lot of links on a particular subject. Wee. But a good poster will narrow it down to an appropriate number (3 or 5?).

By: adampsyche

adampsyche — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:22:21 -0800

Hey guys!

How dogmatic can I be before it becomes automatic?

--The doggie

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:31:13 -0800

How long until the Metafilter Posting Guidelines resemble the Unabridged Tax Code?

By: mcsweetie

mcsweetie — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:33:37 -0800

1 link is plenty, unless some outside info is needed to better understand the topic. any more outside of that is wasting the reader's time.

By: dogmatic

dogmatic — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:34:37 -0800

I can be much much more annoying than this.

Oh believe me, we know. You have a history of pushing the annoyance threshold way beyond its limits.

By: Spoon

Spoon — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:44:14 -0800

Dogmatic A couple of badly judged posts does not a nnoying make.
At least i have always conducted myself in a manner befitting a gentleman.

By: briank

briank — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:01:13 -0800

Like eyeballkid says, I think tamim holds a record which will probably stand the test of time for most links in a single post. And you know, none of those were irritating.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:24:12 -0800

I personally prefer three links or less; any more than that and the subject matter tends to become more work than I care for. I admit it, I'm lazy. Tamin's world link record did leave me in awe, though I only clicked thru on a large handful of links.

By: adrianhon

adrianhon — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:44:53 -0800

IMHO, it doesn't really matter how many links there are in the post (although clearly this depends on the length of the post), but two guidelines should be observed. Firstly, the link word(s) should indicate what the target's content will be - this sounds obvious but a lot of people tend to link any old word, resulting in random clicking.

Secondly, I agree with Jennak's comment that there shouldn't be several continuous links, since this makes it much harder to figure out how many links there are - but this shouldn't happen if the first guideline is observed.

I don't agree with those who put a limit on links in posts. My ideal post would have one 'main' link and perhaps several other links with supporting or other related information. There shouldn't be any links to what is essentially the same piece of information though (e.g. links to three news stories covering the same event at the same time). Certainly the post should have a main focus though.

By: Frasermoo

Frasermoo — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:34:35 -0800

i have always conducted myself in a manner befitting a gentleman.

now i know you are a friend of my cuz. that is what he would say to people, minutes before releasing the kraken on their ass.

By: tilt

tilt — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:58:47 -0800

with some posts even one is too much!

By: geoff.

geoff. — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:34:56 -0800

7... the answer is 7.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:57:53 -0800

A one (lick), a two (lick), a three (crunch).

A three.

By: bingo

bingo — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:19:43 -0800

rushmc: the world will never know.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:50:47 -0800

Obviously, someone needs to write a script that will calculate the average number of links mathowie includes in his posts. That will be deemed the perfect number, which everyone must adhere to.

By: Shadowkeeper

Shadowkeeper — Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:32:44 -0800

Creating memepool-style front page posts with an annoyingly large number of links just got a lot easier.

By: kindall

kindall — Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:50:46 -0800

Gee, thanks.

By: Shadowkeeper

Shadowkeeper — Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:19:42 -0800

Don't thank me, thank the moon's gravitational pull!