Interesting. Makes it sound like a variant form of threadshitting. 
One poster’s inability to derive utility from a link does not mean others suffer from the same constraints.
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.
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.
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.
The fact that this thread exists is objective evidence that you’re wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I should have written “everyone” instead of “others”.
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.
This is why I try to use DOIs for academic papers.
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.”
Yes. That is the whole point of this thread.
This is me, too.
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.
“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? 
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.
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
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.
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.
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.