# When linking to an article, suggest the OP tell us what they think is worth noting about it **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 3, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300 "2021-05-03T16:16:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/1 "2021-05-03T16:16:44Z")
This thread was prompted by a comment by @Procrustus in another area: > [@Kansas lawmaker goes full-on wacko](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kansas-lawmaker-goes-full-on-wacko/941141/58): > > Absolutely. I’m seeing a lot of otherwise decent posters just post a link now. I’ve reported a few of them, to no avail. I’d like a firm rule that something must be in all post in addition to a link. Even if it’s just “this article discusses that.” I heartily endorse this suggestion. There are a few posters (you know who you are) who routinely only post a link that shows up as a headline and a couple of lines of text. They probably think the relevance/importance/salience of the link is apparent, but it isn’t always. I’d like them to call specific attention to what strikes them as worth noting about that article. A couple of pull-quote lines would be helpful, too, especially because sometimes the preview cuts off a sentence in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/2 "2021-05-03T16:38:43Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > A couple of pull-quote lines would be helpful, too, especially because sometimes the preview cuts off a sentence in the middle. And because links to paywalled articles are useless to many posters. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/3 "2021-05-03T17:10:23Z")
I thought this used to be a fairly firm rule here, but it certainly seems to have been lost since the transition to the new software. I too would like to see it enforced again. It’s only courtesy. If someone doesn’t want to be bothered to include even a short summary, I wonder why they are even posting in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/4 "2021-05-03T17:29:45Z")
> [@SCAdian](#): > > And because links to paywalled articles are useless to many posters. That, and if I go to an article that pesters me about my ad blocker and refuses to let me read without disabling it I’m not going to bother. I block ads because it allows me to view your page without waiting forever for those ads to load, and sometimes those ads cause technical issues with the page or blast sound at me or whatever. So yeah, don’t assume I am going to follow your link and read through it to try to find the point you’re making. Just spell it out for us. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/5 "2021-05-03T17:46:40Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > So yeah, don’t assume I am going to follow your link… For me, this goes double for links to videos. I virtually never follow video links without some hint as to what it’s about. At least tell me why you find worth sharing. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/6 "2021-05-03T17:48:06Z")
If the link is in reply to a cite request it is one thing, but if it is just a post, there should be some explanation or summary of what the link is for. Now as to Ops, I routinely close Ops that are nothing but a link. Those are not allowed. _This part is my opinion_, They are not to be encouraged as they are lazy and suck. I would like to see bare links without summaries done away with for the most part. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/7 "2021-05-03T18:31:55Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > I virtually never follow video links without some hint as to what it’s about. I sometimes still won’t, especially if it’s longer than a couple of minutes long. It better be a really good video. I read fast and don’t mind reading an article most of the time (as long as I know why I’m reading the article). I don’t have nearly as much patience waiting through someone talking a fraction as fast as I can read, plus sitting through intros and transitions and sometimes ads in the middle of the video. ---
**Author:** ![SCAdian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scadian/32/3292_2.png) [@SCAdian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCAdian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/8 "2021-05-03T18:49:09Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > I would like to see bare links without summaries done away with for the most part. They’re not permitted in the one other forum I read – mods always delete them. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/9 "2021-05-03T19:03:30Z")
> [@SCAdian](#): > > And because links to paywalled articles are useless to many posters. > [@Atamasama](#): > > That, and if I go to an article that pesters me about my ad blocker and refuses to let me read without disabling it I’m not going to bother. To add - if you describe why your linked content is significant, if I care but can’t access it via your link then I can usually find some other way to read about it. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/10 "2021-05-03T19:31:26Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > If the link is in reply to a cite request it is one thing […] IMHO, this too is frequently abused. It’s very common for posters to respond to requests (or challenges) for cites by simply linking to a very long article, from which it’s not at all apparent what part purports to support the claim being made on this MB. The other poster is then being requested to 1) spend a lot of time reading through a very long article, from which at best only a very small portion supports the claim, and 2) guess as to what exactly is being cited as support for the claim. IMHO, if it’s a long article, the citer should quote the relevant portion, and if it’s not obvious then explain exactly how the cite supports the claim. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/11 "2021-05-03T19:47:47Z")
Yes, just cut and paste a paragraph or two. True, sometimes when asked for a cite I will cut & paste from a couple and not for a couple others, but that is just showing other cites agree. (Since we have more than a few posters that if you link to a certain site, they will just say that site is worthless or biased, but not provide a counter cite). Now sometimes Discourse will show the headline and first paragraph of a story from a cite. If so, and that is enough, great. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/12 "2021-05-03T20:10:47Z")
Also worth considering: For every person, there is some average number of links on a page they will follow, per page visited. The precise value of that number varies from person to person, but it is always less than 1. There are no exceptions: Mathematically, there can’t be. And that being the case, you can never assume that people will follow any given link. ---
**Author:** ![CairoCarol](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cairocarol/32/3825_2.png) [@CairoCarol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CairoCarol)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/13 "2021-05-03T20:23:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s very common for posters to respond to requests (or challenges) for cites by simply linking to a very long article, from which it’s not at all apparent what part purports to support the claim being made on this MB. The other poster is then being requested to 1) spend a lot of time reading through a very long article, from which at best only a very small portion supports the claim, and 2) guess as to what exactly is being cited as support for the claim. Not only that, but it occasionally turns out that the link doesn’t even support the argument that the person doing the linking claims that it does. I don’t know if this is usually a conscious deception (based on believing that no one will wade through a long article, so they will get away with it) or an accident (based on the poster not wanting to read a long article and just assuming that it will say what they want it to). Probably both situations occur. But I’m always amused and grateful when another poster - more determined than me, I virtually never read much of the long academic cites that people provide - points out, “that article you linked to doesn’t even say what you claim that it does!” ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/14 "2021-05-03T20:25:10Z")
Agreed. The longer the article, the less valuable the cite without quoting from part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/15 "2021-05-03T20:40:01Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > To add - if you describe why your linked content is significant, if I care but can’t access it via your link then I can usually find some other way to read about it. Exactly. I have on occasion been shown a link to an article I want to read about (because the poster gave me a good reason to read it) and if the link is to a page I have trouble with for some reason, I might be able to view it in “private” mode or Google the subject and find another host. Your link may be to an AP article on MSN and I might find it on CNN or a local news page or a even on AP’s own site. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/16 "2021-05-03T20:53:03Z")
Does anybody perceive any difference between adding a **[hyperlink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink)** to a term, phrase, assertion, or similar and using the (previewed/non-previewed) links we’re discussing ? > **[Hyperlink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink)** > > Pages for logged out editors learn more > > > In computing, a hyperlink, or simply a link, is a digital reference to data that the user can follow or be guided by clicking or tapping. A hyperlink points to a whole document or to a specific element within a document. Hypertext is text with hyperlinks. The text that is linked from is known as anchor text. A software system that is used for viewing and creating hypertext is a hypertext system, and to create a hyperlink is to hyperlink (or simp... Or are they viewed as functionally pretty equivalent ? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/17 "2021-05-03T20:58:52Z")
Depends. A link to Wikipedia could well have a built-in summary or get right to the point. But far too many posters think a link to the Washington Post or other paywall sites will resolve and be useful. Wikipedia is more the exception than the rule. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/18 "2021-05-03T21:00:06Z")
If you’re hyperlinking explanatory text which gives context to the link itself I don’t see a problem there at all. Assuming people can tell that there’s a link there, I think it might be subtle on some browsers. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/19 "2021-05-04T14:33:12Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > But far too many posters think a link to the Washington Post or other paywall sites will resolve and be useful. Too many posters think that they can’t access Washington Post articles when they absolutely can. Mods too, apparently. In part, I assume, because we’ve been asked not to explain how soft paywalls\* work. In a GQ/GD non-OP situation, someone sharing a link to relevant information is doing me a favor with their curation. If I’m not interested in or capable of accessing, reading, and understanding the content, that’s on me. They do not owe me even more of their time just because spoon-feeding would save me my time. And demanding that they do so is inappropriate. Not everyone is qualified or capable of participating in every conversation. \* > **[Paywall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall)** > > A paywall is a method of restricting access to content, with a purchase or a paid subscription, especially news. Beginning in the mid-2010s, newspapers started implementing paywalls on their websites as a way to increase revenue after years of decline in paid print readership and advertising revenue, partly due to the use of ad blockers. In academics, research papers are often subject to a paywall and are available via academic libraries that subscribe. > Paywalls have also been used as a way of... ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/20 "2021-05-04T14:54:38Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > And demanding that they do so is inappropriate. Demanding that a person actually participate in a conversation rather than dropping a useless link like a turd? We’re not Qanon adherents wanting to pore over and decipher what a poster is trying to say. > [@Ruken](#): > > Not everyone is qualified or capable of participating in every conversation. Dropping a link devoid of context is not participating in a conversation. It’s the equivalent of walking up to people who are talking and handing them a pamphlet. Most people are going to either refuse to take it, or toss it in the trash. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300.md?page=2)