Is Deep Linking Good Linking? March 7, 2002 6:30 AM Subscribe
Is Deep Linking Good Linking? Jakob Nielsen says websites should encourage deep links as they enhance usability. He suggests three general guidelines. Nutcote(please scroll down)raises the question of etiquette: "Maintaining a links-based weblog, this is an important issue. I can see good points on both sides; to some extent it depends on the kind of site being linked to. When linking to a personal site, deep linking might not be good manners (depending on the site); but this is not the case when linking to an article on a major news site. It is a worldwide _web_ after all.".
Since this is an issue which affects a lot of us, I'd like to know what other bloggers think. Specially as I suspect the decision whether or not to deep-link(as opposed to just linking to an irrelevant main page as well as to the intended page) is not as simple as Nielsen makes it sound. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Since this is an issue which affects a lot of us, I'd like to know what other bloggers think. Specially as I suspect the decision whether or not to deep-link(as opposed to just linking to an irrelevant main page as well as to the intended page) is not as simple as Nielsen makes it sound. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Thanks. Here's a thread that directly addresses the question, from last December.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:48 AM on March 7, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:48 AM on March 7, 2002
fwiw, on the nutcote link above, scroll way down, more than half the length of the page; look for the purple '3rd March' heading; the 'deep linking' entry is right above it.
posted by mlang at 7:16 AM on March 7, 2002
posted by mlang at 7:16 AM on March 7, 2002
and speaking of deep linking & politeness, why doesn't mr/s nutcode give her/his links a 'name' attribute so as to permit reciprocal deep linking?
posted by mlang at 7:26 AM on March 7, 2002
posted by mlang at 7:26 AM on March 7, 2002
I would say if it's accessible, link to it. Owners of resources who do not want outside links can protect those resources by using htaccess to block out links from other domains.
posted by walrus at 7:59 AM on March 7, 2002
posted by walrus at 7:59 AM on March 7, 2002
I think "deep-linking" to a media file is really, really wrong -- particularly if the link should be to a European source, as their courts have consistently ruled that deep-linking is not something to be protected. (i.e., that a link to Metafilter.com can be protected as free speech, but a link to http://metatalk.metafilter.com/images/metatalk_banner.gif or even http://metatalk.metafilter.com/category_list.cfm cannot be protected, as it diminishes the need for the organization offering the information when taken out of context.)
I think this is bullocks, personally; I think a link to a page three links deep isn't wrong. When we're documenting a source in a bibiliography, don't we include the page number? Why can't I specify the page that I want someone to see, especially since the web is so volatile. Directions to "go to the bottom of the main index, click on the third link from the top, go to the second column of the next page and two paragraphs down..." would quickly become useless.
In my opinion: Direct links to media files that aren't your own -- bad. Direct links to .gifs or .jpgs that aren't your own -- tolerated now, but technically wrong. Direct links to secondary, tertiary, etc. pages on a site -- a-okay.
posted by jennak at 8:06 AM on March 7, 2002
I think this is bullocks, personally; I think a link to a page three links deep isn't wrong. When we're documenting a source in a bibiliography, don't we include the page number? Why can't I specify the page that I want someone to see, especially since the web is so volatile. Directions to "go to the bottom of the main index, click on the third link from the top, go to the second column of the next page and two paragraphs down..." would quickly become useless.
In my opinion: Direct links to media files that aren't your own -- bad. Direct links to .gifs or .jpgs that aren't your own -- tolerated now, but technically wrong. Direct links to secondary, tertiary, etc. pages on a site -- a-okay.
posted by jennak at 8:06 AM on March 7, 2002
all that aside, deep linking is a good thing, a necessary thing, and one of the basic foundations of hypertext. i don't see how deep linking could ever be considered bad manners, except for in situations like the one jacob describes or cases of linking to non-html files with the intent of stealing bandwidth (
).
posted by mlang at 8:08 AM on March 7, 2002
).posted by mlang at 8:08 AM on March 7, 2002
If a publisher doesn't want a resource to be served to the world, making it accessible under a URL is a poor way of showing it. There are technical solutions available to any publisher that doesn't want to make something available via a direct link -- just as Yahoo has made it impossible for people to link externally to images on GeoCities sites.
posted by rcade at 8:41 AM on March 7, 2002
posted by rcade at 8:41 AM on March 7, 2002
If it's on the internet, it's on the internet, and you should be able to link to it. Deep linking is more precise and efficient, and could actually save bandwidth because you send people directly to the target instead of having them navigate through a series of pages.
In anticipation of the counterargument that deep linking skips ad impressions that site owners are trying to get, I don't care. In my view the main purpose of the internet is to exchange information quickly and efficiently, and too many web sites compromise this by artificially breaking up content over multiple pages to get more ad impressions.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:50 AM on March 7, 2002
In anticipation of the counterargument that deep linking skips ad impressions that site owners are trying to get, I don't care. In my view the main purpose of the internet is to exchange information quickly and efficiently, and too many web sites compromise this by artificially breaking up content over multiple pages to get more ad impressions.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:50 AM on March 7, 2002
http://web.mit.edu/aram/Public/godkills.jpg
even the directory structure says its 'Public'.
I only have a problem with deep linking within frames to Hide the source.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:03 AM on March 7, 2002
even the directory structure says its 'Public'.
I only have a problem with deep linking within frames to Hide the source.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:03 AM on March 7, 2002
1. jennak: Why should a movie clip get protection that an HTML file doesn't? I don't get it.
2. <snark>I thought weblogs weren't about links anymore.</snark>
3. If so many sites weren't such an architectural mess, deep linking wouldn't enhance usability all that much in the first place. People could just navigate to the target. (Don't get me wrong, I still favor deep linking; it's just interesting to note that the whole reason this is a usability issue at all is that people generally can't find things on Web sites without being pointed straight to them.)
posted by jjg at 10:52 AM on March 7, 2002
2. <snark>I thought weblogs weren't about links anymore.</snark>
3. If so many sites weren't such an architectural mess, deep linking wouldn't enhance usability all that much in the first place. People could just navigate to the target. (Don't get me wrong, I still favor deep linking; it's just interesting to note that the whole reason this is a usability issue at all is that people generally can't find things on Web sites without being pointed straight to them.)
posted by jjg at 10:52 AM on March 7, 2002
I think the "bandwidth theft" idea comes about because actual used bandwidth is generally charged at source rather than destination. It's not theft however, if you're giving it away.
Organisations or individuals which want to protect certain files from deep-linking will find that there is a simple technical solution, and I personally believe it is incumbent on them to implement it, rather than on everybody else to second-guess them.
Framing content, or including it within a webpage (like an embedded image) is a quite different issue to linking, and may breach copyright laws, particularly in Europe.
posted by walrus at 11:24 AM on March 7, 2002
Organisations or individuals which want to protect certain files from deep-linking will find that there is a simple technical solution, and I personally believe it is incumbent on them to implement it, rather than on everybody else to second-guess them.
Framing content, or including it within a webpage (like an embedded image) is a quite different issue to linking, and may breach copyright laws, particularly in Europe.
posted by walrus at 11:24 AM on March 7, 2002
I do think it's wrong to link directly to a multimedia file. The reason being, the organization that produced it or hosts the file gets no credit or benefit -- it's simply the bandwidth provider. I don't think that's what the Internet is about; I think it's more about links and community.
In earlier MeFi/MeTa threads about deep-linking, several European MeFites posted links to legal cases in which deep-linking was not upheld. US courts consistently uphold deep-linking, whereas European courts do not. Europeans argue that companies lose money when people link directly to a secondary page. I don't buy that -- but I do see how they lose money (in that they're providing something for no recognition in return) when a multimedia file is directly linked.
posted by jennak at 2:26 PM on March 7, 2002
In earlier MeFi/MeTa threads about deep-linking, several European MeFites posted links to legal cases in which deep-linking was not upheld. US courts consistently uphold deep-linking, whereas European courts do not. Europeans argue that companies lose money when people link directly to a secondary page. I don't buy that -- but I do see how they lose money (in that they're providing something for no recognition in return) when a multimedia file is directly linked.
posted by jennak at 2:26 PM on March 7, 2002
Although as this thread shows us, it’s easy to get revenge if someone links to your media files directly.
posted by Gary at 3:51 PM on March 7, 2002
posted by Gary at 3:51 PM on March 7, 2002
I do think it's wrong to link directly to a multimedia file. The reason being, the organization that produced it or hosts the file gets no credit or benefit -- it's simply the bandwidth provider. I don't think that's what the Internet is about; I think it's more about links and community.
Speaking personally, we always put a little graphic with the URL of the website into the video clips we host. We understand about community and that people will want to view and share our files in other ways than by navigating through our website, and we hope some of them will come back, having seen the little sting at the start and end. The only thing I would really be annoyed about would be someone building another website around our content, or trying to charge for it.
But I know that in such a situation, I can always stop other domains linking to the files, or instead feed them a short instructional video about the value of asking permission first. So this bothers me a lot less than it used to. FWIW I live in Europe and have posted links such as you describe before. I've changed my opinion though, after thinking over the arguments from both sides. I think there's a subtle difference between a link to a file and framing it. It does pay to credit the site though (eg foo video from foo.com), even if just so that people can easily find more of the same stuff.
It's a toughie, because I don't want people to feel they can't deep link into my websites, but I would feel a bit put out about people blatantly nicking stuff. It has to be a fine line: yours is not to link to non-html files, mine would be not to use anything other than an obvious html link, with a credit if it's hiding the source. Not sure right now which one is best for the community at large.
posted by walrus at 2:44 AM on March 8, 2002
Speaking personally, we always put a little graphic with the URL of the website into the video clips we host. We understand about community and that people will want to view and share our files in other ways than by navigating through our website, and we hope some of them will come back, having seen the little sting at the start and end. The only thing I would really be annoyed about would be someone building another website around our content, or trying to charge for it.
But I know that in such a situation, I can always stop other domains linking to the files, or instead feed them a short instructional video about the value of asking permission first. So this bothers me a lot less than it used to. FWIW I live in Europe and have posted links such as you describe before. I've changed my opinion though, after thinking over the arguments from both sides. I think there's a subtle difference between a link to a file and framing it. It does pay to credit the site though (eg foo video from foo.com), even if just so that people can easily find more of the same stuff.
It's a toughie, because I don't want people to feel they can't deep link into my websites, but I would feel a bit put out about people blatantly nicking stuff. It has to be a fine line: yours is not to link to non-html files, mine would be not to use anything other than an obvious html link, with a credit if it's hiding the source. Not sure right now which one is best for the community at large.
posted by walrus at 2:44 AM on March 8, 2002
Not-so-offtopic: I hate when I can't link to a particular entry in a weblog that has got so many entries a day (nutlog... weren't it for mlang's tip, it would take me the day to find the entry about deep-linking).
posted by michel v at 3:58 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by michel v at 3:58 AM on March 8, 2002
Michel v: That was my bad, not nutcote's. I should have specified how far down you should scroll. By the way, when will someone suggest a useful way of doing this? What about percentages? Nutcote's comment is about, what?, 70% down? Any ideas?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:13 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:13 AM on March 8, 2002
I tried to post yesterday, but got booted out. I'll try to remember everything I said...
One note: This is an example of a link that is front-page Metafilter material, not Metatalk.
For Neilson, I don't think this article breaks any big news. It's mainly common sense, and the topic is kind of old news. Neilson seems to always repackage something that is simple knowledge and claim it's a new front in 'usability'. (and sometime some of the things he suggests aren't really 'usable')
As for the issue, deep linking has a couple issues to it; for some sites the navigation scheme is designed to support the business. So, you may be by-passing revenue streams.
But more to the point of html vs 'other media' - The usability aspect of it all is that if you link to the html, you give the user the ability to continue using the site you sent them to. It's a lot like pre-filling in a form for you, as opposed to just giving the result and no way to adjust the original variable inputs.
That was the main issue with frames - you destroy the navigation scheme when you link to the framed page. (Of course, you could get around it by building a frameref yourself to call the navigation frame and the target page you wanted to deep-link).
If you link to a picture or pdf, or other kind of file, then how is the user supposed to be able to explore the rest fo the site you're just directed them to for context you found interesting/worthy enough to deep-link to?
posted by rich at 8:33 AM on March 8, 2002
One note: This is an example of a link that is front-page Metafilter material, not Metatalk.
For Neilson, I don't think this article breaks any big news. It's mainly common sense, and the topic is kind of old news. Neilson seems to always repackage something that is simple knowledge and claim it's a new front in 'usability'. (and sometime some of the things he suggests aren't really 'usable')
As for the issue, deep linking has a couple issues to it; for some sites the navigation scheme is designed to support the business. So, you may be by-passing revenue streams.
But more to the point of html vs 'other media' - The usability aspect of it all is that if you link to the html, you give the user the ability to continue using the site you sent them to. It's a lot like pre-filling in a form for you, as opposed to just giving the result and no way to adjust the original variable inputs.
That was the main issue with frames - you destroy the navigation scheme when you link to the framed page. (Of course, you could get around it by building a frameref yourself to call the navigation frame and the target page you wanted to deep-link).
If you link to a picture or pdf, or other kind of file, then how is the user supposed to be able to explore the rest fo the site you're just directed them to for context you found interesting/worthy enough to deep-link to?
posted by rich at 8:33 AM on March 8, 2002
By the way, when will someone suggest a useful way of doing this? What about percentages? Nutcote's comment is about, what?, 70% down? Any ideas?
I'm sorry; I just realized how stupid(or difficult)this question was. When new content is added the item you've referred to slides further down as time passes...
Perhaps link-based weblogs who add comments to their links(as I think they should)could add some sort of marker. Or is this technically unfeasible or just plainly ridiculous?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:19 AM on March 8, 2002
I'm sorry; I just realized how stupid(or difficult)this question was. When new content is added the item you've referred to slides further down as time passes...
Perhaps link-based weblogs who add comments to their links(as I think they should)could add some sort of marker. Or is this technically unfeasible or just plainly ridiculous?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:19 AM on March 8, 2002
(Permalink) One thing you can do in forums that accept html is to embed your own anchors. Then other people can link to your comment, like I do here.
posted by rodii at 9:56 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by rodii at 9:56 AM on March 8, 2002
If you link to a picture or pdf, or other kind of file, then how is the user supposed to be able to explore the rest fo the site you're just directed them to for context you found interesting/worthy enough to deep-link to?
You can give an accrediting link as I described above. Otherwise, I find I can usually hack the URL to find the main index page. It's just a question of guessing which / to delete after. I suspect that not everyone knows this though.
posted by walrus at 11:17 AM on March 8, 2002
You can give an accrediting link as I described above. Otherwise, I find I can usually hack the URL to find the main index page. It's just a question of guessing which / to delete after. I suspect that not everyone knows this though.
posted by walrus at 11:17 AM on March 8, 2002
Yes, walrus, you can hack to the main url.. not that that always works. But Neilson was claiming deep linking for usability and hacking urls to continue navigation is just as unusable as being directed to a generic home page and left to dig for the content that was discussed.
Accrediting the link I should have mentioned is a good compliment to deep-linking when you're not going to a navigatable page, but if there is a navigatable page that the content can easily be found and accessed from, there is no reason to not just send the user there instead of directly to a non-html media file.
posted by rich at 1:42 PM on March 8, 2002
Accrediting the link I should have mentioned is a good compliment to deep-linking when you're not going to a navigatable page, but if there is a navigatable page that the content can easily be found and accessed from, there is no reason to not just send the user there instead of directly to a non-html media file.
posted by rich at 1:42 PM on March 8, 2002
Look - Nutcote now has day-end links, so all the "scroll down about half-way" hoopla can be abandoned. Here is that second link again then, to see if it works. Er, scroll up just a bit. Good idea, wot?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:30 PM on March 9, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:30 PM on March 9, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
That blogger is out there. It can't be bargained with! It can't be reasoned with! It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until your link is dead!
Actually, this topic came up in a testy exchange about building whole sites in Flash. To me, the more specific and targeted a link is, the better.
posted by NortonDC at 6:42 AM on March 7, 2002