# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/21 "2021-05-04T14:57:20Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > Demanding that a person actually participate in a conversation rather than dropping a useless link like a turd? Interesting. Makes it sound like a variant form of threadshitting. 😅 ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/22 "2021-05-04T16:20:04Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > 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. One poster’s inability to derive utility from a link does not mean others suffer from the same constraints. > [@Atamasama](#): > > 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. Responding to a post with a link is not “devoid of context.” If I ask a question in GQ and someone posts a link to a Wikipedia article that I couldn’t find because I didn’t know the right search terms, they’re doing me a huge favor. Some people will refuse to read and learn, but some of us are here because we’re actually interested in fighting our own ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/23 "2021-05-04T16:29:11Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Responding to a post with a link is not “devoid of context.” If I ask a question in GQ and someone posts a link to a Wikipedia article that I couldn’t find because I didn’t know the right search terms, they’re doing me a huge favor All one has to say is “this link contains information relevant to your question.” Sure, it would be nice to say a little more, but requiring every post to say _something_ more than a bare link is a much needed reform (I thought it was already the rule) If someone asks a question, a link could be 1) the answer, 2) a similar question, or 3) something else entirely. No one wants to click on a link without knowing a little bit more. ---
**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 4, 2021, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/24 "2021-05-04T16:30:59Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Responding to a post with a link is not “devoid of context.” If I ask a question in GQ and someone posts a link to a Wikipedia article that I couldn’t find because I didn’t know the right search terms, they’re doing me a huge favor. Some people will refuse to read and learn, but some of us are here because we’re actually interested in fighting our own ignorance.- My intent when starting this thread is to suggest that people posting a link in response to something indicate what they are replying to or why. Not just posting a link in a vacuum with the assumption that others are following the thread (as it were) of thought as closely as they are. It’s a simple thing to either quote the referenced post (as I have here) or to add the comment: “This source addresses the question raised by @posterxyz in the above discussion regarding the feasibility of turning the White House lawn into a self-supporting armadillo-racing track.” It doesn’t cost extra to add a few clarifying words of explanation. ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/25 "2021-05-04T16:35:26Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > One poster’s inability to derive utility from a link does not mean others suffer from the same constraints. The fact that this thread exists is objective evidence that you’re wrong. > [@Ruken](#): > > Responding to a post with a link is not “devoid of context.” If I ask a question in GQ and someone posts a link to a Wikipedia article that I couldn’t find because I didn’t know the right search terms, they’re doing me a huge favor. Some people will refuse to read and learn, but some of us are here because we’re actually interested in fighting our own ignorance. There may be circumstances where it’s okay to do that. Someone asks, “What is a red-backed monkey spider?” You drop a Wikipedia link to red-backed monkey spiders. That’s a pretty obvious and helpful link. But most of the time it’s not that clear. What I see far too often is that there is, say, a discussion about human rights. Someone drops a link to a news story about a factory in China. It’s not obvious how relevant it is, because the story is about how the factory has a cutting-edge solar array and is a big step in reducing carbon emissions. But in the middle of the 5th paragraph it has a mention about working conditions there that are horrid. It could be a great point but unless you mention that fact, or selectively quote from it, or do anything to explain why you dropped the link, few people are going to click it or spend enough time digging through it to find your point. I’m a bit confused by your opposition to clarity. You don’t fight ignorance by being cryptic. That’s completely counter-productive. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/26 "2021-05-04T17:14:19Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > 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. I 100 percent disagree with this. All information relevant to the conversation should be in the thread. Links should be only for supplemental information, support, etc. I should be able to read a thread and understand every relevant point and and argument without clicking a single link. This is “not doing my work foe me.” This is what it means to have a conversation. Referencing sources by itself is not a conversation and is not informative. It is and should be supplemental only. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/27 "2021-05-04T17:15:34Z")
We should also remember that some of our threads pop up again 5, 10 or 15 years later. At that time, many links might be no longer valid. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/28 "2021-05-04T17:17:03Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > All one has to say is “this link contains information relevant to your question.” I disagree. The standard should be that the poster summarize _what that relevant information actually is_. It needn’t be a lot of detail but it should be able stand alone from the reference. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/29 "2021-05-04T17:26:49Z")
I feel like it varies a great deal. Sometimes, the point is given in the headline, and the headline shows up in the one-box. I have been following the “Order of the Stick” thread for years, and it is routine for someone to post a link to a new strip with no comments. I sometimes embed a link to a wikipedia article that explains a word I just used, (embedded in the word.) I suppose in that case, there IS a post, and the link is just supplemental. But I, too, despise a bare link to a video. I mean, really, I’m not going to watch that video unless you give me a really compelling reason to. And I have also seen the link to the article about solar panels on a Chinese factory submitting with the intention of making some point about worker abuse in China. I’m not comfortable with a hard-and-fast “no link without additional text” rule, though. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/30 "2021-05-04T17:47:31Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > The fact that this thread exists is objective evidence that you’re wrong. I should have written “everyone” instead of “others”. > [@Atamasama](#): > > I’m a bit confused by your opposition to clarity. You don’t fight ignorance by being cryptic. That’s completely counter-productive. I’m not “opposed to clarity”. I’m opposed to a rule _requiring_ that posters who insist on being spoon-fed be accommodated. _I_ benefit from a random news article even if others choose not to. Not everyone has a ton of time to spend on pro bono posts here. ---
**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, 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/941300/31 "2021-05-04T17:48:22Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > We should also remember that some of our threads pop up again 5, 10 or 15 years later. At that time, many links might be no longer valid. This is why I try to use DOIs for academic papers. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/32 "2021-05-04T18:06:10Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > who insist on being spoon-fed This very notion of “spoon-fed” seems to me entirely antithetical to the very purpose and spirit of these boards. If you think it’s to much to actually put in your post the information you want people to have, and calling it “spoon feeding” that makes me just not want to engage in any discussion with a person with that attitude. You’re here to discuss. Actually presenting the information that you want people to have is central to that. It’s not “spoon feeding.” ---
**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 4, 2021, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/33 "2021-05-04T18:07:19Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The standard should be that the poster summarize _what that relevant information actually is_ . It needn’t be a lot of detail but it should be able stand alone from the reference. Yes. That is the whole point of this thread. > [@puzzlegal](#): > > I’m not going to watch that video unless you give me a really compelling reason to. This is me, too. > [@puzzlegal](#): > > I’m not comfortable with a hard-and-fast “no link without additional text” rule, though. I would like people to use common sense. If possessed of any. As a grant proposal writer for almost 40 years, I had a rule for myself: to read the thing over (and often ask others to do it, too) and try to see any place where I might possibly be misunderstood and to clarify as much as possible without adding a bunch of extra words. Especially because I know the people reading my ~~crap~~ brilliantly reasoned arguments are reading hundreds of similar requests, may be in a bad mood, may be multitasking, may be drunk, and/or may just take random offense over something I can’t control. Whatever. I try to be as clear as I can here, too, and yet I find (not often, but not never) that in spite of my best efforts and best editing, people totally misunderstand me-- and I usually blame myself. So yeah, hard-and-fast-rule-- not necessary. But before you hit “reply,” cast your eye over your post and see if a few extra words might make your intent clearer than just a naked link. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/34 "2021-05-04T18:07:56Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Not everyone has a ton of time to spend on pro bono posts here “Pro Bono posts”? WTF is that supposed to mean? If it’s too much trouble for you to engage with other posters than what are you here for? ---
**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 4, 2021, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/35 "2021-05-04T18:09:21Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > “Pro Bono posts”? WTF is that supposed to mean? If it’s too much trouble for you to engage with other posters than what are you here for?.. Seconded. With puzzlement. Are we keeping you from more important stuff? 👋🏽 ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2021, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/36 "2021-05-04T18:19:50Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > 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. > > - > > [en.m.wikipedia.org](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall) > > ### [Paywall](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paywall) > > A paywall is a method of restricting access to content, especially news, via a purchase or a paid subscription. 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 … Is this some sort of joke? The article does not describe how to do what you suggest, which is exactly what people in here are complaining about. ---
**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 4, 2021, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/37 "2021-05-04T18:21:22Z")
The way I’m thinking about it is: it’s a choice between: - Me – a single person – taking a very little bit of extra time to summarize, quote, highlight, or set up the referenced page, or - Asking anybody and everybody else to do this for themselves Though I don’t see the sense in making it a rule, it does seem like a thoughtful gesture that I can do for the sake of others with a minimum of incremental effort on my part. My $0.02 ---
**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 4, 2021, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/38 "2021-05-04T18:23:06Z")
Sums it up well. I doubt it will ever be a rule, just discouraged. Again, except for Ops. It is already a rule for Ops. ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-linking-to-an-article-suggest-the-op-tell-us-what-they-think-is-worth-noting-about-it/941300/39 "2021-05-04T18:25:37Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Is this some sort of joke? The article does not describe how to do what you suggest, which is exactly what people in here are complaining about. Good point. It’s a perfect example of the problem we’re trying to address. The SDMB doesn’t have a “Google it yourself if you want the answer, genius” attitude. It’s pretty much the opposite of that. The argument against “spoon-feeding” is so anti-SDMB that it blows my mind. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 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/941300/40 "2021-05-04T18:31:42Z")
Agreed. A title and initial text are displayed. There are plenty of times that is all that is necessary. But it makes no sense to put just a link in an OP. A simple link can supply supporting information germane to the conversation though, adding some text merely to justify an obviously useful link would be pointless. [Previous 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=1) [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=3)