Which linking style do you use and/or prefer?
1. Data from OpenSecrets.org shows that 14 of the top 15 donors give to leftist 527 groups.
2. Data from OpenSecrets.org shows that 14 of the top 15 donors give to leftist 527 groups.
3. Data from OpenSecrets.org shows that 14 of the top 15 donors give to leftist 527 groups.
4. Heh.
I generally go for #3 myself. I like to write links that are summaries of what I'm linking to -- I think it's helpful to Google, too.
On a note related to the above link, check out the top contributing organizations that give to 527 groups. They're all leftist. Not that this should be a surprise to regular readers.
I'm a big proponent of #3.
Plus when you scan over an entry the links are like bold face. They point out important points.
#3 is my favorite. #2 is OK but puts the emphasis on the wrong word(s).
#1 would be misleading unless you were linking to the main page. (Some folks use an approach that's #1 and #3 combined.)
MW: "On a note related to the above link, check out the top contributing organizations that give to 527 groups. They're all leftist."
Who cares.
Hard 3. That is what I want to see, and how I do my own linking.
I like # 3.
Hey Mark, so touchy today! Don't drive angry...
JP: No, I'm not angry. :-)
I'm with #3
Style #3. An additional link on "OpenSecrets.org" pointing to their home page would also be acceptable.
Yeah, I think #3 is pretty clearly superior, but #1 and #2 seem very common... or maybe I just notice them more because they annoy me?
#3 is standard practice, at least on the part of people who know what they're doing, dating to the early days of the web. Since readers scan link text in preference to actually reading the page, making the link text meaningful makes sense.
I'm a little curious what the larger issue is that you have with the largest individual donors to 527s giving to groups that you would define as "leftist". Is it that they're being traitors to their class by not supporting the Bush administration, or something?
JC: No, it's that most people think of Democrats as the "party of the people", not the "party of the millionaires" -- so I think this is an interesting factoid.
Correctly, this factoid isn't going to change that perception.
Sorry, i like #1, with a caveat or two. In the blogosphere, google rankings are hard currency, so i always prefer when someone links the text of either my name, or my site's name, rather than some other less meaningful text.
But often as not, we're linking to sites we dont like and disagree with, so linking the text asshat or fucktard would seem to be best...
I like #1, but then that is the style I use. I usually try to link on the subject OR the action verb.
I guess that places me outside the realm of normalcy.
Err, I meant #2.
Mark: Well, the factoid sure seems pretty relevant to the perception and the reality.
Marty: You're using Google wrong then, because no one searches on the name of your blog. People search for terms, and if the terms are in links to your blog then they'll find your blog by using the term.
MW: Relevant, maybe. Important enough to change the perception, no.. and rightly so.
I tend to go with #3 for the reasons you stated. If I combine it with style #1, it's to link the source's name to their main site page to make it easier for someone to see what else they've written.
Btw, hi Michael. Long time since I've dropped by - how're things going?
Ib: Great, thanks for visiting :)
Yeah, what can I say - so many blogs, so little time. ;]
Loved the Applied Historian - one of the most fun bits of reading I've seen in the past few weeks. Everyone else has been consumed with electoral politics, myself included.