When linking to an article, suggest the OP tell us what they think is worth noting about it

About This Message Board
41

I ant to add, too, that I’m not advocating a hard rule here. I don’t think anyone is advocating for that. Look at the title of this thread, it talks about “suggestions”. The idea of there being a rule is a straw man.

One of the unfortunate consequences of Discourse is that while it is very helpful in creating a preview, people are using it too much as a crutch. I wish I could remember what thread it is, but someone put a post that was a link to an article and the board didn’t format it properly (because the page didn’t have proper tags to tell it what to include in a preview) so it was literally a hyperlink. When asked to explain what the link is because we literally have no clue what it is without clicking it, the poster blamed the board software and got indignant about having to explain themselves, insisting that it’s not their fault it didn’t render. Which completely misses the point; even if it did provide a preview you should still explain your point in providing the link. So while “link dropping” isn’t a new phenomenon, it has become even more prevalent on the new board due to the software usually providing a bit of a preview.

I believe we’re trying to make it clear that when you are posting, the onus is always on the poster to make it clear what they’re trying to say. It doesn’t need to be a hard rule, but it is with the same spirit as the prohibition on writing a post in a language other than English without providing the translation (again without being a rule, we actually do have a rule about posting in English).

42

I’d get behind the hard rule idea. No need for a grey area. Every post needs something more than a link to a website somewhere. It’s easy, it’s helpful, and it’s logical.

43

Everything has exceptions. There are times when just the link is all that is needed. This would be as a reply to an open question in a fast moving thread as a good example. Though the link should directly answer it in this case.

“Hey, what was the name of the surgeon in MASH in the movie and the 1st season?”
Duke Forrest
Answered with a simple link to verify it.

“When was Pluto discovered?”

Answered in the preview of a non-paywall site. So answered and can read more if you want to.

44

Fair enough. I have concerns though. I do think there are some cases where a link on its own is helpful; let’s say someone literally asks for a web site and you answer with a link. Does it really need text saying, “Here is your web site friend”? It seems redundant.

I’m also not sure that it resolves the issue. Is there a difference between posting a link, and posting a link with the accompanying text saying, “Read this”?

That’s why I think a rule isn’t that helpful, or at least not a bright line one. I think it would be too easy to skirt around. I’d say that if a poster has a habit of posting links without explanation to discussions, and those links are unhelpful, that it might warrant a note and/or a warning if it’s a pattern/habit. But that should be left to the judgement of mods, and I think it would have to be pretty egregious to warrant any mod action.

45

Or my example, of the Order of the Stick thread. I believe everyone is happy to see the link to the latest strip, and no one needs additional words to tell them why it was posted.

46

We don’t generally moderate “posting weak sauce”.

47

Well outside of Ops in GD and P&E. :slight_smile:

The comic post example is another good exception.

48

Then they should not participate in the thread- which is the conversation.

49

The post refers to being asked not to explain how to get around a “soft” paywall. The link contains information relating to that term, which, I presume, the poster did not want to quote or link directly to, due to being asked not to directly provide such information.

In response to the OP more generally:

I sometimes link to Washington Post articles, because that’s usually what I read. In a breaking news thread, I will summarize, and post the link, because that’s where I got it. Then, if someone wants more info, they can either access the link or search for the same info from a different source. Also, in QZ, for example, often the article is one that is not paywalled by WaPo, but I don’t always know whether it will be or not, depending on how I accessed it.

If I’m asked for a cite for something I said in a post, I might provide a WaPo cite because it is literally my source for the information. I do try to pull a relevant quote. Sometimes I don’t have time to do everything I can to make it easy for someone to find the information, but I do try. And I’ll usually say if I don’t have time, and will come back later to provide more.

I also don’t post bare links, except perhaps in direct response to a post saying, “do you have a link?”

Sometimes I’m unable to find another source that has the same info as the paywalled source. I think, as @Ruken did, that people can find a way to read what I link in that case, or we will be at an impasse, where I have a cite, which the other person does not have access to. Similar to posting a cite to a book I have in hand. The response to such a situation seems to vary greatly based on what one is trying to get out of the discussion, and how one is approaching it.

50

I note that @Procrustus’s post mentioned in the OP was in the thread @Atamasama is talking about. And @Procrustus was replying to my post saying we might need an ATMB thread about this topic. So I’ll give my two cents as well.

I think there is value in letting the Infoboxes do some of the lifting for us, but we have to be wary of thinking they can do it all. For one, I think it reasonable to say you should actually check said Infobox to make sure it says what you want. And to say that, 99 times out of 100, you’ll need some additional text as well.

That said, I do understand why @Darren_Garrison was a bit taken aback. I think he should be more careful to make sure an Infobox actually posts, but, at the same time, if you slip up, there’s no need to make a big deal about it. It was indeed already dealt with by the time the mod gave their request.

That said, I do think @Hari_Seldon’s post was trying to layout expectations in this area, which was good. But I think an ATMB thread like this is a better place for that.

51

This is the principle I am advocating. Not a “GODDAMM RULE!!” :scream:

… but just a good faith effort (on the honor system) to be clear and not a snarky attempt to make others feel stupid because they couldn’t read your mind. Or read between the lines of your mind. Or read between the Windmills of Your Mind. :thinking:

52

Or because they live on a limited income and can’t afford subscriptions to frequently pay walled sites or they don’t have the technical skills to use the soft paywall workarounds. The purpose of the Dope is to fight ignorance, not to make privileged posters feel superior.

53

I agree that sometimes, the link is all that’s needed: when it’s obvious what the link is and how it’s relevant to the discussion at hand. My post (#6) in this thread, linking to a Straight Dope article, is an example: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what I did, but I am open to hearing arguments to the contrary.

54

IMHO; a perfect example of 100% no need for anything but the link.

55

I’m willing to bend a little, but it seems to me that the better practice would be to preface the link with something like “Cecil addressed a related question back in 99.”

The link you posted was (if I’m reading the preview correctly) about a different question than posted by the OP in the thread (Why did all the McDonaldland characters disappear?") Did Cecil address that? Was it because McDonalds plagiarized them? Maybe that’s all addressed in the linked article. But maybe not. Why not just tell us?

56

Limited incomes are irrelevant, as no one has access to every paywalled site, no matter how privileged they are.

57

I frequently cite sources that i have paid for. I don’t do this to feel superior. I do this because i think those sources are good enough that I’m willing to pay for expanded access to them. And having done so, i often read them. Why should i search to find another, perhaps mediocre, source to link to if I’ve just read something that i believe is a good source? And most of the paywalled sites i read give everyone a couple of free articles a month.

I do try to say what is in the article, especially if it’s paywalled, so others won’t blow their free articles on stuff that doesn’t interest them.

58

I think that was the point, she was responding to an earlier post that said a link even behind a paywall should be fine without any other info.

If the link is behind a paywall, I think it is fine to cite it but explain why it is your cite. Just like you do in fact.

I cite Scientific America at times but it is up to me to quote a bit and explain what else might support what I’m saying.

59

This, this, and this.

Why not just tell us? That’s not a rhetorical question.

I agree. I quote from New York Times, Washington Pose, and The Atlantic frequently. I subscribe to all, and I make a good attempt to quote enough (sometimes too much :roll_eyes:) so y’all can get the point of the article.

60

So much this. Paywalled links to me are a defect of the World Wide Web. Hyperlinks are supposed to provide the information you linked to. Providing a link that does not defeats the principle of the free flow of information on the Web.

And not free as in beer, either. It’s not the money, it’s the convenience. I don’t want to have to work around either illicitly or licitly in order to get the information that links, by the culture of the web, are implying that they will provide.

I don’t care if there are news paywalls that don’t show up in search results and that people don’t link to. I just don’t want to have to sift through links that may as well be dead links unless I feel like jumping through some sort of hoop just to see the content.