There are internal links that add value, and those that don't. There are also ways of adding links only to add more traffic as you pointed out, which is sad.
Also when you read a story and expect to go:
a --> b
and instead you get
a --> some misc site within the site's network --> b
it doesn't work
DuaneBrown
· 2 years ago
I look forward to your better solution. Should be a good read.
CountRob
· 2 years ago
Wikipedia has an insane amount of internal links, and they are helpful. If you just said "we covered this in an article a while back" and DIDN'T link to it, that would be annoying to have to find it. So internal links are logical.
Also, as long as you don't put ads inside the text it's not a problem. I hate it when sites put a huge square ad in the middle of the page and the text is around it. Very annoying, glad that isn't done here.
me
· 2 years ago
I too don't mind the way the ads or internal linkage is setup at your site Pete. Any more ads and people will start using ad blockers ;)
igneous
· 2 years ago
heres an example of internal linking that I think everyone hates. Techcrunch to crunchbase. That shit annoys the fuck out of me
Collin LaHay
· 2 years ago
I think the way you do it right now is fine, but if you think you have a better idea, more power to you!
Keeem
· 2 years ago
I don't see anything wrong with how it's done now. I actually appreciate it. There's so much news reported here I can't read everything nor do I always remember where stuff I did read already is. The links are relevant and helpful. :)
Robin Wauters
· 2 years ago
I think internal linking is usually annoying (TC), sometimes not (Mashable).
At blognation, we always link directly to the service or company website, occasionally to a previous article or one from another editor that adds context. But unlike TC, we only link to the company database (index) at the very bottom of a post.
Curious what you have to say about 'via' links. My opinion: they should always be there. Period.
Pete
· 2 years ago
Oh, I have no doubt that [via] links should always be there - they always are.
We just sometimes get complaints that people want an in-article link, rather than [via sourcename]. On the other hand, if you do that, you sometimes get complaints that you are "burying" the source link in the story rather than making it more prominent by having it outside the article body in a [via] link. It's therefore impossible to please everyone.
Adam Taylor
· 2 years ago
I like the way you've addressed the issue rationally and professionally.
Very nice to see. Good job!
Gina
· 2 years ago
Internal linking has ramifications beyond company revenues (which in my opinion should reflect and be subservient to the quality of your relationship with your customer base).
If sites are willing to lead their users (internally) astray for the sake of ad revenues or site stats, I'd consider those revenues and stats a false reflection of the quality of your site/usership. You're essentially intentionally degrading the quality of the user's experience.
Perhaps it's possible to, instead of depending on that 10% of increased revenues to come from current internal linking dependencies, brainstorm a way to continue adding genuine value to your site that will encourage new opportunities for increased revenue.
That said, I for one certainly appreciate your efforts to remain conscious of the user experience--however, many journalistic sites, for example, are utilizing internal linking practices that have serious consequences that are contrary to their mission to inform their readers (by linking to tangentially relevant internal pages rather than highly topical external pages in their news citations).
Web sites need to be conscious of how, why and where they utilize internal links, and make sure that their strategy does not conflict with their central mission.
zooloo
· 2 years ago
Hi. that was a very interesting articel about inbounding linkage! thanks
Alexandre Figueiredo
· 2 years ago
I have to agree with igneous and I already mentioned it here once. There's nothing has annoying has a link to a useless site like crunchbase. It would be a lot more honest and useful to link to a internal page like it's done here at Mashable. At least we're redirected to a link that actually has information about the site we want to get to know.
below24
· 2 years ago
Useful links are what help the net grow. Maybe a link rating system would be good. Sites with less than favourable content would then either have to get there act together or see there visitor count fall drasticaly.
The likns could change colour depending on relevance.
Rob Maguire
· 2 years ago
I'd love to see a similar piece on via links, feel free to entertain the idea.
All Comments
Also when you read a story and expect to go:
a --> b
and instead you get
a --> some misc site within the site's network --> b
it doesn't work
Also, as long as you don't put ads inside the text it's not a problem. I hate it when sites put a huge square ad in the middle of the page and the text is around it. Very annoying, glad that isn't done here.
At blognation, we always link directly to the service or company website, occasionally to a previous article or one from another editor that adds context. But unlike TC, we only link to the company database (index) at the very bottom of a post.
Curious what you have to say about 'via' links. My opinion: they should always be there. Period.
We just sometimes get complaints that people want an in-article link, rather than [via sourcename]. On the other hand, if you do that, you sometimes get complaints that you are "burying" the source link in the story rather than making it more prominent by having it outside the article body in a [via] link. It's therefore impossible to please everyone.
Very nice to see. Good job!
If sites are willing to lead their users (internally) astray for the sake of ad revenues or site stats, I'd consider those revenues and stats a false reflection of the quality of your site/usership. You're essentially intentionally degrading the quality of the user's experience.
Perhaps it's possible to, instead of depending on that 10% of increased revenues to come from current internal linking dependencies, brainstorm a way to continue adding genuine value to your site that will encourage new opportunities for increased revenue.
That said, I for one certainly appreciate your efforts to remain conscious of the user experience--however, many journalistic sites, for example, are utilizing internal linking practices that have serious consequences that are contrary to their mission to inform their readers (by linking to tangentially relevant internal pages rather than highly topical external pages in their news citations).
Web sites need to be conscious of how, why and where they utilize internal links, and make sure that their strategy does not conflict with their central mission.
It would be a lot more honest and useful to link to a internal page like it's done here at Mashable. At least we're redirected to a link that actually has information about the site we want to get to know.
The likns could change colour depending on relevance.