Are Blind Links Rude?

Chicago Tribune columnist and blogger Eric Zorn has a bee in his bonnet about "blind links," which he describes as links bloggers put in to their text without an explanation of what they are and where they go:

It says, to me, that the writer values his own time -- the time it would take him to type out just a few words explaining what's on the Web page where he's sending you -- more than he values the time it will take you to click on the link and scan the page you land on to decide if you're even remotely interested in what's presented there.

Or it says that he thinks of himself as playing a superior role in his relationship with you,the reader; that he thinks of you as a dog who will chase after every stick he throws.

And so I refuse, on principle, to click on a link when I'm not pretty sure where it's taking me. I barely have time as it is to read things I know will interest me.

My thoughts on this: Eh. If a "blind link" is put in because the blogger is plain lazy, I guess that's one thing. However, speaking personally, when I put in blind links -- and I do -- I usually put them in for a purpose: For example, they're a punchline to a deadpan comment, and describing the link would ruin the joke. In other, slightly more complicated words, I consider these "blind links" as part of the grammar of online writing, which is slightly and subtly different than the grammar of unlinkable writing. They have their uses, so long as you have an understanding of who the blogger is.

I do think following blind links on blogs you're not familiar with is not necessarily a good idea, because there are a lot of fake blogs out there, whose entire purpose is to get you to follow a link that will take you to a page that will attempt to fire up a whole bunch of scripts to download crap that will take over your computer, and so on. Also, if you're on a brower that will let you see where a link goes by hovering over it before you click (as most do, including the AOL Windows client browser), you should use that to see if the link is going to take you somewhere you want to go.

What are your thoughts on "blind links"? A fun surprise or an annoying nuisance, or something inbetween? You can leave a comment here, or (since he's asking for comments as well) you can leave them at Eric Zorn's blog.

Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry

This entry has 9 comments: (Add your own)

#9 Comment from lurkynat
4/15/06 10:34 PM | Permalink

uh it's jsut that he forgot to check I think
(ducking Monponsett's sucker punch)
nat
#8 Comment from cabaldevin
4/14/06 5:30 PM | Permalink

I'm torn on the subject of blind links. When I'm posting to my own blog, I try to include enough context in the surrounding text so that folks have an idea of what I'm linking them to -- and I always warn about NSFW material, or large downloads.

There's a time and a place for blind links -- it definitely works for humor, though Internet humor already requires a level of trust -- but if a blogger uses them all the time, then I start to get twitchy. Instapundit, for example, wanders back and forth over the line all the time. I'm a lot less likely to click on one of his "Heh" links than I am a simple short "Blogger Foo has an opinion about Halibruton mining uranium on Io."

Ultimately, it's a trust issue. I'm more likely to click on a blind link from someone I feel has a good track record of respecting the things I care about.
#7 Comment from fisherkristina
4/14/06 4:57 PM | Permalink

Wow, I never noticed you could hover over a link, and it would tell you the URL! Thanks for showing me this!

Krissy
http://journals.aol.com/fisherkristina/SometimesIThink
#6 Comment from chasferris
4/14/06 3:58 PM | Permalink

Eric's objection noted.... and I agree to inlcude a word or two to explain what the link is to. But I like links in what I read, so I will include them in my Blog for those who want to read more about the topic under discussion.
#5 Comment from beachrprtr
4/14/06 3:57 PM | Permalink

"Blind links. done right, are part and parcel of the way narrative works on the Internet. The example EZ uses to begin [his post] is a great example of the wrong way to blind link We have no idea what he's talking about. But if I use a link, as I did today, that says 'There is no way I would want to marry, work for, or even be friends with this woman,' and you click the link on 'this woman' to the story about the person with the amazing memory who literally remembers every detail of every day, then you've accomplished a small but satisfying comment/joke while providing something interesting for readers.

"Sometimes, as Scalzi says, the linked story is the punch line. Other times it allows you to comment on the linked story in a sly way. Other times you can seduce the reader into a story in a way you might not otherwise be able to.

"I used a lot of blind links today in my column today (at beachwoodreporter.com) and by doing so I was able to send readers to Steve Johnson's Trib piece on a presumably new Google innovation without giving the game away, for example. It's better than saying, Hey, 'Steve Johnson wrote a clever piece today on a fake new Google innovation that would search your wallet.' I think I do other writers like Johnson a favor by instead ensuring (in my view) that more readers actually go read his piece, rather than just read my summary.

"If you aren't sufficiently intrigued to click on a blind link, the writer/blogger hasn't done his/her job, or you just don't care about the subject matter. So what.

"This is the Internet. Links aren't strictly for background or footnotes. That's traditional print thinking. Links, like music videos and text messaging, are part of a new level of narrative that, I think, engages the reader."

Show all comments (4 more)

By The Way... Public Journal
Back to Journal	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds

By The Way...

Are Blind Links Rude?