I think the lack of links is tied to the idea that the writers of the articles are true journalists, and everything is fact checked, so they don't need to attribute anything beyond quotes that they used in the article. Since the NYT blog is "just a blog", the links provide them an easy out if things aren't quite perfect. The whole thing is bunk...
bijan
· 6 months ago
There are so many ways these stories could have linked out with ease.
Few obvious examples:
in the boston globe story, why didn't they link to Nabeel's blog? or nabeel's company? or the current bill proposed to ban non competes?
in the NYT story, they could have linked to other blogs or MSM articles about those companies, those products, user feedback, reviews, whatever.
I assume (hope) the writers are frustrated as well.
daryn
· 6 months ago
Good point, I was thinking about attribution, not exploration.
From that perspective, I'm sure the younger writers, who are native to a hyperlinked world, are frustrated.
Traditionally news media was there to filter the firehose, so you got "all the news that was fit to print," not just in breadth of coverage, but in depth as well. Links are beautiful in that they can easily be ignored, or let you go deeper if you choose, and it's unfathomable in this day and age that the papers don't embrace that.
I assume you saw the daily show clip from two weeks ago? :)
the same silly hesitation to link, and "leak" traffic has been going on in newsrooms for a dozen years.
MayankDhingra
· 6 months ago
I've noticed the same but I am not surprised as most big organizations that have started using Social Media are still very closed about such things..
I find it silly when they can send traffic to their site/blog by hyperlinking but not to other people's sites/blogs whose story etc they quote..
stevegarfield
· 6 months ago
Here are the reasons:
1. They don't care 2. They don't have the money to pay people to make sure links are included 3. They don't have a process in place to make sure authors include URL's in stories 4. They want to increase 'time on site' so they do not want to send people away
I've been fighting this battle for years with the Boston Globe.
--Steve
bijan
· 6 months ago
Hey steve
I don't understand those reasons especially point #2. Is that your guess or didthey tell you that in the past ?
They directly told me in a meeting a few years ago. I was there to help and advise them and they ignored everything.
They still don't care.
They had a convoluted process where the newspaper and online were seperate and as I understand it people had to re-key the stories to get them online. Not sure of the specifics since I never saw it, but I think this might have improved since I last met them. But the main point is that the online Globe does not believe in the link economy at it's core.
Even tech articles don't include links. Authors are at the mercy of the newspaper.
In Sunday's Bo Burnham article, the main YouTube video, My Whole Family,... is not linked to.
Usually I contact the author to have him/her contact someone to get links added, if it's even possible. Sometimes it gets resolved and sometimes I just put all the links in a blog post.
In this case the side bar has a link to Bo's YouTube account, but an inline link to the viedo they are talking about, or an embed of the video would have been better.
That is an issue at many newspapers. Their publishing database is only concerned with print, or too old, or the software company doesn't care, and so hyperlinks are not available to reporters or editors. My paper is in that situation. While I don't know what a reasonably priced option would have been, I know we were directed to our publishing platform at the corporate level. So, there's a level of helplessness, for sure.
stevegarfield
· 6 months ago
I think, at the Globe, if reporters type in URLs into their stories, the online sytstem recognizes them.
bijan
· 6 months ago
Even if the system doesn't supported hyperlinks the writer could insert links in parenthesis right?
I haven't lived in Boston in 20 years so I can't speak to the Globe, but I read the New York Times (online) every day. They have done many things superbly with online media, and at the same time, they have a schizophrenic approach to the idea of journalism as a place where the audience can participate. Esp.
>"Articles" do not allow comments >"Columns" are written by specific authors (e.g. Andrew Ross Sorkin) but do not allow comments >"Blogs" are written by specific authors (e.g. Floyd Norris) and do permit comments
Except that a bunch of authors (e.g. David Pogue) have non-comment columns and comment blogs. I can't for the life of me figure out the difference.
Cristiano Betta
· 6 months ago
The problem for newspapers is that they don't control the link destinations.
Imagine someone makes a fun hack, say ShouldIBackupMy.com, which gets written about on the BBC site. Then at a certain moment said hacker forgets to extend his domain subscription after which some leecher fetches the domain because it has Google love, and puts kiddy porn on the page. Next up some concerned mom finds the link on the BBC site and clicks through and gets the scare of her life. She then writes an angry complaint, saying the BBC is a disgrace to her taxpayer's money, etc.
As you can see, it's a pain to include links without them biting you in the ***.
bijan
· 6 months ago
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or funny.
But I read blogs everyday and I haven't seen this happen.
And I don't have that problem on my site.
I don't think that is the reason.
That logic would mean they should link to at least "well known" websites at least, right?
Currently they don't link to anything. Zero. Zilch. Nothin.
I'm not being sarcastic nor funny. This is what I have been tolled by more than one person at the BBC, and a few more at other news papers. This is why the BBC does provide links, but not inline, but instead in the sidebar with clear notes that they don't control those destination sites and that they can't guarantee the content.
I know blogs don't have this issue, but your blog is not being payed for by average Joe, and average Joe gets very angry if he thinks his tax money is being wasted (especially in the UK), even when he's actually inherently wrong.
bijan
· 6 months ago
Hmm.
Let's try again. My apologies if I didn't get your sentiment.
The sfgate article I read above in my post talks about the iPhone. Why didn't they link to the iPhone. I don't think there is a risk of a bad link there.
And in the Boston globe piece they could have linked to turbine entertainment or the bill being proposed to end non competes that is hosted on a government website.
If links are too risky then wouldn't all business models that rely on links be doomed (ie google and the entire web actually)
My point in my post is that newspapers need to offer a buyer product if they want to thrive on the web. Lack of links hurts them. If their content doesn't include links then there content will have less authority and value to us readers. We want the whole story, links and all.
I agree mostly with you, I'm just trying to explain the difficulties that established news sources face.
To make one thing sure: most news papers or news sites are not in the business of crawling the web, Google is. This is why Google is able to update your search results and remove sites that no longer exist or turned into spam sites. I'm not sure if news sites should have to go into that business, maybe, maybe not.
Another thing I need to point out is how I love the BBC's effort of internally pushing the boundaries of what is done with the news site. Their BBC Backstage department (http://welcomebackstage.com/) has been putting a lot of effort into this.
The reason why they went for links in the sidebar (not in the text, aka "inline") is also quite intriguing. Apparently the BBC is not just a news service, it's also a news archive. They already have a vast archive of video that they are now also making publicly available online, but they are building their infrastructure to be able to keep their news articles archived too. This is the main reason why they like to keep their article (the text) and the metadata (the links) separated, because I dare to bet most sites, even the reliable ones, won't be there anymore in the same shape or form in 150 years.
It might be interesting for them to link the Internet Archive instance of those sites instead, but the Internet Archive doesn't show new entries until a few months after the fact, which means it would be interesting from a reference point of view, but not a consumer one.
Final thought: I doubt it's that interesting to link to the obvious, i.e. link iPhone to apple.com/iphone. Yes it's handy, but a) who the hell doesn't know what an iPhone is and b) I can Google that. What I am often missing though (and would think is very useful for archiving purposes) are the links to sources. I so often see a very poor reference to a press release when I wish they had actually linked to the source for me to get deeper into the topic.
bijan
· 6 months ago
Good points. Thx.
By the way, I'm completely fine with links on the side bar. I just want them :)
While the article you read at the SF Chronicle's SFGate website didn't link to other sites, the homepage at sfgate.com often has links to articles at other sites, right on the home page. Here's a front page article (at SFGate) that links to an outside source (another paper) for more details:
My impression is that newspapers don't actually know anything about SEO so I would be surprised if they did this for SEO reasons (reading a response to your post on Twitter) (-: e.g.: http://www.drivelry.com/online-news-bloggers-v-...
Cristiano Betta
· 6 months ago
The amount of people from the BBC, Times, Guardian, etc that I see at big tech conferences (and SEO conferences) makes me doubt that. I think it probably has more to do with legacy, politics, and accountability.
The Daily Tiger
· 3 months ago
The Daily Tiger on www.daily-tiger.com does the reverse. There are hundreds of newspaper links easily found on the site, growing daily, and there is also a translator on the site. You can read The Times, say, in 41 languages, and it is free.
All Comments
I think the lack of links is tied to the idea that the writers of the articles are true journalists, and everything is fact checked, so they don't need to attribute anything beyond quotes that they used in the article. Since the NYT blog is "just a blog", the links provide them an easy out if things aren't quite perfect. The whole thing is bunk...
Few obvious examples:
in the boston globe story, why didn't they link to Nabeel's blog? or nabeel's company? or the current bill proposed to ban non competes?
in the NYT story, they could have linked to other blogs or MSM articles about those companies, those products, user feedback, reviews, whatever.
I assume (hope) the writers are frustrated as well.
From that perspective, I'm sure the younger writers, who are native to a hyperlinked world, are frustrated.
Traditionally news media was there to filter the firehose, so you got "all the news that was fit to print," not just in breadth of coverage, but in depth as well. Links are beautiful in that they can easily be ignored, or let you go deeper if you choose, and it's unfathomable in this day and age that the papers don't embrace that.
I assume you saw the daily show clip from two weeks ago? :)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?v...
I find it silly when they can send traffic to their site/blog by hyperlinking but not to other people's sites/blogs whose story etc they quote..
1. They don't care
2. They don't have the money to pay people to make sure links are included
3. They don't have a process in place to make sure authors include URL's in stories
4. They want to increase 'time on site' so they do not want to send people away
I've been fighting this battle for years with the Boston Globe.
--Steve
I don't understand those reasons especially point #2. Is that your
guess or didthey tell you that in the past ?
Thx.
-bijan
---
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bijan
They still don't care.
They had a convoluted process where the newspaper and online were seperate and as I understand it people had to re-key the stories to get them online. Not sure of the specifics since I never saw it, but I think this might have improved since I last met them. But the main point is that the online Globe does not believe in the link economy at it's core.
Even tech articles don't include links. Authors are at the mercy of the newspaper.
In Sunday's Bo Burnham article, the main YouTube video, My Whole Family,... is not linked to.
Article:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/arti...
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZoO8LyizLA
Usually I contact the author to have him/her contact someone to get links added, if it's even possible. Sometimes it gets resolved and sometimes I just put all the links in a blog post.
In this case the side bar has a link to Bo's YouTube account, but an inline link to the viedo they are talking about, or an embed of the video would have been better.
-bijan
---
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bijan
insert links in parenthesis right?
-bijan
---
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bijan
>"Articles" do not allow comments
>"Columns" are written by specific authors (e.g. Andrew Ross Sorkin) but do not allow comments
>"Blogs" are written by specific authors (e.g. Floyd Norris) and do permit comments
Except that a bunch of authors (e.g. David Pogue) have non-comment columns and comment blogs. I can't for the life of me figure out the difference.
Imagine someone makes a fun hack, say ShouldIBackupMy.com, which gets written about on the BBC site. Then at a certain moment said hacker forgets to extend his domain subscription after which some leecher fetches the domain because it has Google love, and puts kiddy porn on the page. Next up some concerned mom finds the link on the BBC site and clicks through and gets the scare of her life. She then writes an angry complaint, saying the BBC is a disgrace to her taxpayer's money, etc.
As you can see, it's a pain to include links without them biting you in the ***.
But I read blogs everyday and I haven't seen this happen.
And I don't have that problem on my site.
I don't think that is the reason.
That logic would mean they should link to at least "well known"
websites at least, right?
Currently they don't link to anything. Zero. Zilch. Nothin.
-bijan
---
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bijan
I know blogs don't have this issue, but your blog is not being payed for by average Joe, and average Joe gets very angry if he thinks his tax money is being wasted (especially in the UK), even when he's actually inherently wrong.
Let's try again. My apologies if I didn't get your sentiment.
The sfgate article I read above in my post talks about the iPhone. Why
didn't they link to the iPhone. I don't think there is a risk of a bad
link there.
And in the Boston globe piece they could have linked to turbine
entertainment or the bill being proposed to end non competes that is
hosted on a government website.
If links are too risky then wouldn't all business models that rely on
links be doomed (ie google and the entire web actually)
My point in my post is that newspapers need to offer a buyer product
if they want to thrive on the web. Lack of links hurts them. If their
content doesn't include links then there content will have less
authority and value to us readers. We want the whole story, links and
all.
Links are the fundental fabric of our web.
-bijan
---
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bijan
I agree mostly with you, I'm just trying to explain the difficulties that established news sources face.
To make one thing sure: most news papers or news sites are not in the business of crawling the web, Google is. This is why Google is able to update your search results and remove sites that no longer exist or turned into spam sites. I'm not sure if news sites should have to go into that business, maybe, maybe not.
Another thing I need to point out is how I love the BBC's effort of internally pushing the boundaries of what is done with the news site. Their BBC Backstage department (http://welcomebackstage.com/) has been putting a lot of effort into this.
The reason why they went for links in the sidebar (not in the text, aka "inline") is also quite intriguing. Apparently the BBC is not just a news service, it's also a news archive. They already have a vast archive of video that they are now also making publicly available online, but they are building their infrastructure to be able to keep their news articles archived too. This is the main reason why they like to keep their article (the text) and the metadata (the links) separated, because I dare to bet most sites, even the reliable ones, won't be there anymore in the same shape or form in 150 years.
It might be interesting for them to link the Internet Archive instance of those sites instead, but the Internet Archive doesn't show new entries until a few months after the fact, which means it would be interesting from a reference point of view, but not a consumer one.
Final thought: I doubt it's that interesting to link to the obvious, i.e. link iPhone to apple.com/iphone. Yes it's handy, but a) who the hell doesn't know what an iPhone is and b) I can Google that. What I am often missing though (and would think is very useful for archiving purposes) are the links to sources. I so often see a very poor reference to a press release when I wish they had actually linked to the source for me to get deeper into the topic.
By the way, I'm completely fine with links on the side bar. I just
want them :)
-bijan
---
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bijan
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/d...
And a front page link to an article elsewhere:
Fraud cases in the U.S. (Mortgagefraud.org) links to http://www.mortgagefraud.org/