Non descriptive links harmful.

May 2, 2012 8:19 AM

"This" considered harmful? I've noticed that it's fairly common when linking to something, that the link is given a non-description. This seems prone to cause problems with link rot. I know Matt has a long bet in place that link rot isn't a major issue, but I know I've stumbled onto dead links when looking at old AskMe answers. Should we consider links without description bad form?

I think that when it comes to generating frustration dead links that may have once provided a solution are second only to (I haven't seen it here, but elsewhere) questions followed shortly by a brief "never mind, figured it out."

I don't think it would be too onerous to ask people to be a bit more descriptive with their links. Adding the model of the product you're linking to, or the artist and name of a song, or whatever other details may be pertinent should be simple enough.

posted by borkencode to Etiquette/Policy at 8:19 AM (45 comments total)

"link rot" is a metaphor too far.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:23 AM on May 2, 2012

I think it's great for people to be descriptive with their links, yeah. I try to be good about it myself, but I'm not always. It doesn't need to be the link text itself, even, as long as the surrounding context is clear; basically have something on the page that makes it reasonably obvious what you're linking to even without visiting the link.

That said, standard disclaimer here that bringing it up here is totally fine and I'm hopeful people will be mindful of it, but it's not the sort of thing that's enforceable.

I think the biggest difficulty here is that it's really just easy to be in your own headspace when you're linking something; you know what the context is, so something like "oh hey yeah, this is super great" makes sense when you're doing it even though folks who aren't you don't have that mental context. So remembering to step outside of your own head for a minute when tossing up a link to something is probably the key thing.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:26 AM on May 2, 2012

If you crush an eggshell before you make a link, you won't get link rot.
posted by maudlin at 8:26 AM on May 2, 2012

For many posts, adding explicit description would sort of ruin what I think is the beauty of the hyperlinked post as a form. I argue that we're just better off thinking of the content as generally ephemeral.
posted by Miko at 8:27 AM on May 2, 2012 [2 favorites]

Here's an example of what I mean from one of my own posts of long ago that has developed significant pockets of rot. These are among my favorite kinds of posts, and they consist of a coherent expository paragraph in which links are built from relevant phrases. You can learn simply by reading the paragraph, or you can learn by following the links. I would enjoy this kind of post a lot less if the flow were broken up by identifiers.
posted by Miko at 8:29 AM on May 2, 2012 [2 favorites]

Should we consider links without description bad form?

Historically, we haven't. That said we could do a little more towards this end by having the auto-linker button also include space for a description possibly.

It's a big usability thing generally to not link to stuff like "click here" if you're trying to make your links useful. That said, I think for a lot of people really what they're trying to do is just offer a timely "I found this thing helpful" that isn't really supposed to stand the test of time. And then there's, as Miko says, the hyperlink as more of a metacommentary where you may be intentionally adding or subtracting or obscuring context.

So I see what you are saying and I've been vexed in the past with comments like "THIS is the perfect thing" that dead-ended someplace unhelpful, but I'm not sure that's a bug in and of itself. As cortex says we're actually not committed at a site level to eradicating link rot, we see it as a natural part of what happens to long standing websites. While we try to make sure that internal links don't dead end [something we have total control over] we're not as dedicated to what happens outside the site.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:31 AM on May 2, 2012

> I don't think it would be too onerous to ask people to be a bit more descriptive with their links.

I totally agree. I hate it when people say "You should really read this, it's great!" and make you click on the link to find out what the hell they're talking about.
posted by languagehat at 8:31 AM on May 2, 2012 [6 favorites]

For many posts, adding explicit description would sort of ruin what I think is the beauty of the hyperlinked post as a form. I argue that we're just better off thinking of the content as generally ephemeral.

Ah, for my part I'm not thinking of style issues in posting flow like that—I agree that that's its own sort of thing—so much as casual linking in comments/answers, where someone's lack of description is not so much evocative or stylized as it is just sort of lazy.

So not so much "describe every link in every context", because there are contexts where description may be at odds with intent, but rather "be descriptive when the goal is utility". I'd rather know the name or vital stats of the movie/song/youtube-vid you're linking to than that the agreeing pronominal form for it is "this".

So:

Q: What are some great 70s car chases?
A1: Oh, I love this one.
A2: Oh, I love the car chase stuff in The French Connection.

A2 is more durable and more descriptive with no real increase in the amount of effort involved. You can tell what's on the other side despite it being a youtube linenoise url, and you can tell what the recommendation was even if the video ends up getting pulled. That's the sort of scope where description seems most useful and least constraining since there's not really a style issue involved.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:38 AM on May 2, 2012 [5 favorites]

That said we could do a little more towards this end by having the auto-linker button also include space for a description possibly

Would that automatically make like a hover-over thing?
posted by Think_Long at 8:44 AM on May 2, 2012

non-descriptive links are pretty annoying. especially the FPP where the only text is a link and the text is an obscure reference or joke that only makes sense if you know what the link is about. i'd collect examples but i'm too lazy.
posted by cupcake1337 at 8:53 AM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

Whenever I use a bare this in any writing, I hear my composition teacher saying "what exactly is 'this' referring to? 'This' should always be followed by a noun." If you follow that, you will also get better links.
posted by smackfu at 9:03 AM on May 2, 2012

Would that automatically make like a hover-over thing?

If you want to the hover action, it can be done manually by adding the code in bold below (brackets are subbed in for arrows, which are needed for HTML) to an AHREF link:

[a href="http://thelinkgoeshere.com" title="Look ma, I'm hovering!"] Hover over this line an example[/a]

Hover over this line for an example

Should we consider links without description bad form?

No, not at all. They're nice to have, but ascribing a negative attribute to their lack won't do well for personal dynamics on the site. People still complain about single links being against site policy, even though Matt has explicitly and repeatedly said they're fine.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with not having description for a link.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:07 AM on May 2, 2012 [5 favorites]

Links should definitely have clear descriptions. I suggest putting them all in labeled tins.
posted by Metroid Baby at 9:12 AM on May 2, 2012 [3 favorites]

I thought you were going to complain about the idiotic use of "This." to note heartfelt agreement.
posted by michaelh at 9:21 AM on May 2, 2012 [2 favorites]

I knew it's not something enforceable, but I think simply reminding people that it's better to provide a little context will go a long way. If someone asks "What's a great quantum spanner for all my quantum spanning needs?" A reply of "Oh I like this one!" Is less useful if the link dies than "I like the Weyland-Yutani model 7, which you can buy here." In the first case, the recommended model becomes unknown, but not in the second case.

Perhaps an addition to the FAQ, or a reminder alongside the "don't wisecrack" notice.
posted by borkencode at 9:30 AM on May 2, 2012

That youtube example is really good, cortex. Having to click through to find out what an imdb or youtube link is is annoying (am I isis'ing it correctly?). That said, I'm sure I'm a guilty-guilterson of this.
posted by Phredward at 9:40 AM on May 2, 2012

This seems prone to cause problems with link rot.

This.
posted by grouse at 10:04 AM on May 2, 2012 [2 favorites]

jessamyn: "That said we could do a little more towards this end by having the auto-linker button also include space for a description possibly. "

Yes, agree that it would be great to have title text as part of the auto-linker.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:29 AM on May 2, 2012

I just link every letter of a random word.
posted by Artw at 10:56 AM on May 2, 2012

Still, ultimately less painful and embarrassing than galloping knob rot.
posted by Abiezer at 11:06 AM on May 2, 2012

"This" links to IMDB and Amazon drive me batty. "This" links to comedy central drive me batty and make me want to punch comedy central.

I totally agree. I hate it when people say "You should really read this, it's great!" and make you click on the link to find out what the hell they're talking about.

Double irritating is when the linked website does regional redirect so that the link points to Amazon's home page or something instead of the linked material.
posted by Mitheral at 11:12 AM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

People still complain about single links being against site policy

Really? When has anyone recently said that? Also, that has nothing to do with non-descriptive links.
posted by John Cohen at 11:26 AM on May 2, 2012

iamkimiam: ""link rot" is a metaphor too far."

Like a metaphor or five?
posted by Splunge at 12:29 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

"This" links to IMDB and Amazon drive me batty.

Yeah, I've complained about this before (a long time ago). Just type the name of the movie! We can then look it up if we want to! You don't even really have to link to it at all! You're just making work, "this" linkers!
posted by furiousthought at 1:35 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

I, too, really hate not knowing what a link is. Can't you just say "this video of dogs riding scooters" or "this blog review of Harry Potter" or something? Please?
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:36 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

So if Matt loses the bet, does he still have to pay since the bet will no longer be online?
posted by charred husk at 1:50 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

Just don't use URL shorteners (which is rarely a problem here, thank science) and all will be well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:16 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

> Just don't use URL shorteners (which is rarely a problem here, thank science) and all will be well.

Really? You're OK with other kinds of mystery links? Funny, I would have figured you for a fellow grump about such things.
posted by languagehat at 3:23 PM on May 2, 2012

URL shorteners are like 1000× worse than other mystery links.
posted by grouse at 3:28 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

Nah, URL shorteners aren't the only problem. A YouTube link that says http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF_uOgyBK1c is almost unhelpful as a random bit.ly link. Say what the fuck the link IS.

(The above link is to the hilarious Mitchell and Webb sketch about football.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:46 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

URL shorteners deserve ire mostly for needlessly universalizing URL incomprehensibility, yeah. Many sites already serve canonical urls that are non-descriptive, youtube and imdb being simultaneously among the most widely-referenced and the most aggressively uselessly-formatted in the field, but there's a lot of urls that are somewhere on the the continuum between descriptive and totally opaque.

But a shortener makes them all opaque, which sure as hell isn't helping.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:55 PM on May 2, 2012

Why IMDB doesn't reformat their URLs from http://imdb.com/uselessIndexNumber to http://imdb.com/uselessIndexNumber/NameOfTheMovie is beyond me. You'd think they'd do it for the SEO juice alone.
posted by Mitheral at 4:21 PM on May 2, 2012

jessamyn: we could do a little more towards this end by having the auto-linker button also include space for a description possibly

Think_Long: Would that automatically make like a hover-over thing?

Brandon Blatcher: If you want to the hover action, it can be done manually

But these things are lost on most touch-screen devices, like smart phones and iPads. There is no "hovering" of cursors, as there are generally not any cursors. I'm sure there are smart phone browsers that provide some hint at where a link leads, but that is a technical solution to a user-generated issue.

In short, I agree that cortex's more durable and more descriptive descriptive link example is optimal for all users, not just those on stupid "smart devices" that lack cursors. Of course, Miko's example of a descriptive FPP is also durable, if not as descriptive for individual links. Futzing around, you can usually find some source for similar content on the same hosts, if there is no Archive.org mirror of the page or site.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:26 PM on May 2, 2012

Mitheral: Why IMDB doesn't reformat their URLs from http://imdb.com/uselessIndexNumber to http://imdb.com/uselessIndexNumber/NameOfTheMovie is beyond me. You'd think they'd do it for the SEO juice alone.

IMDb generally doesn't need an extra boost, considering how many sites link to IMDb. Still, it can be done gracefully, as seen on Discogs. The original format was discogs.com/release/235993, which is meaningless. This was extended, with artist and album names in the URLs, like so: discogs.com/Daedelus-Of-Snowdonia/release/235993, except now anything can be injected in the URL. Not harmful, just misleading: discogs.com/Hanson-Mmm-Bop/release/235993.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:32 PM on May 2, 2012

that is a technical solution to a user-generated issue.

The reason people like technical solutions (which, I agree, do nothing on most mobile devices) is because you can implement it once. Re-educating the user base is a less simple proposition. I think it's good if people more clearly explain their links and use more forethought when making them. I think realistically it might be good to have things in place that also encourage better user behavior on the back end.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:40 PM on May 2, 2012

Really? You're OK with other kinds of mystery links? Funny, I would have figured you for a fellow grump about such things.

I'm learning to pick my battles. ;-)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:06 PM on May 2, 2012

jessamyn: "that is a technical solution to a user-generated issue.

The reason people like technical solutions (which, I agree, do nothing on most mobile devices) is because you can implement it once. Re-educating the user base is a less simple proposition. I think it's good if people more clearly explain their links and use more forethought when making them. I think realistically it might be good to have things in place that also encourage better user behavior on the back end."

I think a MetaFilter re-education camp is what the internet really needs right now.
posted by Splunge at 6:01 PM on May 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

The bold blue font comes across to me as emphasis when it's on a fairly long phrase. I prefer either putting the link on the phrase I want to emphasize ("Recent Boston Academy of Science research shows that human beings are inherently stupid") or, if I don't want to be that emphatic, on just one small word ("Recent Boston Academy of Science research shows that human beings are inherently stupid"). Both read better to me than inadvertently emphasizing a long link description ("Recent Boston Academy of Science research shows that human beings are inherently stupid"). It's not a long step from my second example to dropping the description altogether ("Recent research shows that human beings are inherently stupid"). I'm not defending this. I think you make a good point. But I can see how it happens.
posted by salvia at 6:36 PM on May 2, 2012

filthy light thief writes "IMDb generally doesn't need an extra boost, considering how many sites link to IMDb."

Still that's an awfully low hanging fruit to leave hanging especially considering it would make their site more user friendly.
posted by Mitheral at 6:56 PM on May 2, 2012

I've always wondered that about IMDB, too -- what they could possibly be thinking with their URLs -- and been mildly annoyed by the clunkiness of it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:04 PM on May 2, 2012

Previously.
posted by Gator at 8:07 PM on May 2, 2012

YES. This made me think of this, so I'm just going to leave this here.

Tell us what the hell your this is or I'm not going to bother. Life is too short to try to communicate with people who flout Gricean maxims.
 
posted by Herodios at 8:11 PM on May 2, 2012

I agree that links should be more descriptive. But the best way to handle it is to not bother following/clicking on/or otherwise engaging with the non-descriptor (non-describer?).

This applies to any behavior you'd like to see less of. Just don't engage it. Even if it fails to actively discourage the behavior, refuses to engage the person performing the behavior is the functional equivalent of the behavior not even happening.
posted by BurnChao at 2:12 AM on May 3, 2012

Metafilter doesn't have any click tracking. Users posting obfuscated links have no feedback on whether others are following their links so not following them doesn't signal anything.
posted by Mitheral at 5:26 AM on May 3, 2012

Metafilter doesn't have any click tracking.

Well if it did it'd be a hell of a lot easier to stay in tempo.
 
posted by Herodios at 7:40 AM on May 3, 2012