LInk Format

[nancylebov]

Addendum: I can't edit the poll, but one of the questions was supposed to be about what link format you want in your own writing, and the other was about what link format you want in other people's writing.

[Poll #1310558]

Comments

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

I answered, but be aware that the first two questions are the same. You can't edit polls; you might consider replacing it, unless you did it on purpose to see if pedantic people like me would correct you. :-)

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

That's why i did not answer question 2. :)

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

Tiny-earl :D

[redbird]

Link under text, aiming for brevity but not at the expense of information: I won't click through if there's no information as to what's there, and by my standards "Here's something cool" and a Youtube or tinyurl link is not informative. "Here's a cool video of lions" or "here's a cool speech by so-and-so" is informative, and "Baby lions" and a youtube link is as brief as "here's something cool" and that same link.

[dmk.livejournal.com]

I do as I like to see done. I'll write a description with key words or phrase under the link, but the description could go on a bit longer than the link. If the link is long, or if it's in e-mail, or if I think there's reason someone would want to write it down for later, I'll include the tinyurl in parens next to the real link. Any time I use a tinyurl I will make clear the main site. I don't follow URLs that don't have something descriptive and a good idea of the ultimate destination. If you're really dying to know more about a tinyurl, you can always use their preview feature (http://tinyurl.com/ckxt7) by tacking the tinyurl on to "http://preview.tinyurl.com/". Then you'll see the original link.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I thought I'd corrected it, but I obviously missed one last click to make it happen.

[captain-button.livejournal.com]

I want to say I agree completely about informativeness.

[eye-of-a-cat.livejournal.com]

Tie-knee-earl :)

[madfilkentist]

I use links under short text when possible, naked URLs when HTML isn't supported.

The only use I see for TinyURL is situations where a naked URL is needed and would be broken by line wrapping.

[dcseain.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

[pyrzqxgl.livejournal.com]

Some combination of what seems most appropriate for the subject, the writing style, the forum, the audience, and what the software supports.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Links under short text. Usually I try to make the text either explain what the link is, or the name of the site being referenced (the former if it's a particular page or article, the latter when it's the entire site). Occasionally I'll point to something as "link here", with "here" used for linkage.

[henrytroup.livejournal.com]

Agreed - and when circumstances require it, the tinyutl "preview" format is a good thing. Otherwise, who knows where you're going?

[ckd]

I particularly like what John Gruber does with the Linked List linkblog part of Daring Fireball; the RSS feed's item URL and the headline, are linked to the linked document, and there's a small star that's the permalink to the LL entry.

This lets him put a paragraph or two of explanation in while having a click or return key in my RSS reader pull up the linked article instead of having to indirect through his site. Wonderful.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

Text explanation of what is at the link, in full, in case I don't get around to seeing what's being linked to until after it's come down or changed. Link associated with the key words of the excerpt. No TinyURLs in web page links, period; to my taste, the only legitimate use of TinyURL is if you're talking to someone on the phone or in a chat system that doesn't support copy and paste, to give them an easy to type version of the URL as you're explaining to them what you're linking to.

In general, even with people I trust, if I don't know what's going to be at the end of a link, I don't click on it. To do so is to trust their word for it that it's worth dropping what I'm doing to go read something and to take their (usually non-expert) word for it that the page is hosted on a reliable site that won't try a browser hack on me, up to and including virus injection. I want to see where I'm being asked to go, or I don't go.

Also, if it's a link to YouTube and there's no explanation as to why I would care long enough to sit through a video of up to ten minutes' length, I don't click on it. "The web is not television," and I have very little patience for sitting and listening to someone talk, when I would much rather be reading, not least of which because reading what they said is about three times faster for me than listening to them say it. I read a ton of news and web links all day, and have a low threshold for being annoyed at having my time wasted by people who think they're being clever doing so.

Speaking of which, the whole "Rickroll" fad has made me even disinclined to tolerate deliberately obscure link text or obfuscated URLs. The fad itself annoys me on multiple levels, so I don't even risk playing that game.

[avram]

I prefer linked descriptive text, like this, both in what I read and what I write.

[cellio]

Seconded. If an author can't be bothered to give me a hint about why I should click the link, then I can't be bothered to figure out out on my own. Life is too short for all the "look at this" solicitations out there.