Visit Our Blog
Linking Matters
We write a lot about linking especially when it comes to persuading readers to take action.
There are a lot of objections to linking, especially linking off the website. The web & the HT in HTML is all about links.
I won’t go there today.
This blog post about New York Times columnist Frank Rich titled “Frank Rich: Why I Link” is worth reading.
Why has Rich embraced linking when his peers have not? “The theory was: Why not be as transparent as possible by showing sources, when we could?” he told me recently.
That’s a philosophy followed by much of the rest of the Internet; it’s the very foundation of blogging. But most newspapers — including their top columnists — haven’t signed on. read more here…
I would like to see more journalists linking to their sources, providing background and generally acting like if they knew their work was going to appear online. What do you think?
About the author
Jeffrey Eisenberg is the CEO & co-founder of FutureNow (OTCBB: FUTR.OB), providers of OnTarget™. OnTarget™ monitors your website 24/7, uncovers the reasons your visitors fail to buy, register, or become a lead, and then provides specific recommendations for you to implement to keep your goals on target. Future Now has been helping businesses generate more engagements, leads, subscriptions, and sales with its unique framework, Persuasion Architecture®, since 1998. Jeffrey is the co-author of the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, USA Today and New York Times bestselling books “Call to Action” and “Waiting For Your Cat to Bark?” and has spoken at events such as Search Engine Strategies,, Shop.org, UIE, NAB and ad:tech. Please feel free to friend Jeffrey on Facebook
More articles from Jeffrey Eisenberg
- Christmas Shopping Begins in the Next 4 Weeks…June 25th, 2009
- Beware Marketing Automation Without Data ClarificationJune 24th, 2009
December 22nd, 2008
1:14 pm
I personally would prefer to see everything linked that has a link, yes. There is nothing quite as annoying to me as a reader as an url in the body copy that isn’t linked.
Exceptions are when it’s an url for the host site (e.g. when referring to domain.com as an entity, not a link, and you’re reading on domain.com).
However, links are often considered to be endorsements. Using a bridge (”this is not an endorsed link, click through to view this content”) resolves most of the concerns that this raises.
Another concern is when linking would make accessing special content questionable, inappropriate, or illegal content more accessible, which has been before the courts in the US (deep linking).
A third concern would be future proofing the content. Dead links have other side effects, and in a news arena, it’s quite likely that many of the links will turn up dead in the short term, and more over time. A system of snapshots or archived documentation would be ideal, but a costly solution.
Linking to available sources, however, seems sensible and an advancement of the interconnectedness. I would appreciate it as a reader, but recognize that there may be other considerations.
January 2nd, 2009
2:23 pm
Links are good, but the questions of where to place links and whether links should take a visitor away from your site remain.
We’ve chosen to include related links at the end of articles, but those links always take a visitor to related content within our site.
What do you think?
January 8th, 2009
10:02 am
Websites want to be a destination (as in final and only). In reality, sites are part of a larger conversation. Want to be part of the conversation? Don’t act like you’re the only source of information.
If you want to be a stop along the way, you link.