I agree with most of the post; I don’t really agree with your use of links.
I find defining terms—either inline or a footnote—better than using links. (Partially because links—especially external links—can change out from under you! Partially because the article is no longer standalone, and can’t be e.g. saved to read offline. And partially because linking to the ‘original’ definition of something can result in a mismatch where the original definition is X and you’re using it as X’, but your link to the definition still says it’s X.)
(Now, this isn’t to say “don’t use links”. Linking elsewhere is useful. Just not as a substitute for definitions please.)
Yeah, that critique is part of why “use more links” is among my least confident advice of the stuff in this post. I like links mostly as an alternative to nothing—if there’s a term of background that ideally your readers should already know, a link is an economical way to give readers below your target audience in background knowledge a leg up. But for really central terms, yeah, better to summarize in your own words.
I actively dislike the use of inline links. When I am reading an article and there is a link I now have a choice, continue reading or follow that link. I immediately feel myself leaving the thread of the article itself to make a quick assessment about whether the linked material likely to be more or less interesting than the article I am currently reading. Even in the best case this is a small speedbump that can break flow.
I think that maybe the links can all be at the end in a reference section like place. It might feel quite formal, but it doesn’t break the flow.
This fits into my bigger impression that the second-best writing is easily navigable, with headers and signposts that can let me find the bits I want. The best writing just sucks me in from the first sentence and I don’t at any point even think to assess which bits might be relevant because I am so immersed.
I agree with most of the post; I don’t really agree with your use of links.
I find defining terms—either inline or a footnote—better than using links. (Partially because links—especially external links—can change out from under you! Partially because the article is no longer standalone, and can’t be e.g. saved to read offline. And partially because linking to the ‘original’ definition of something can result in a mismatch where the original definition is X and you’re using it as X’, but your link to the definition still says it’s X.)
(Now, this isn’t to say “don’t use links”. Linking elsewhere is useful. Just not as a substitute for definitions please.)
Yeah, that critique is part of why “use more links” is among my least confident advice of the stuff in this post. I like links mostly as an alternative to nothing—if there’s a term of background that ideally your readers should already know, a link is an economical way to give readers below your target audience in background knowledge a leg up. But for really central terms, yeah, better to summarize in your own words.
I find footnotes superior for that sort of thing.
I actively dislike the use of inline links. When I am reading an article and there is a link I now have a choice, continue reading or follow that link. I immediately feel myself leaving the thread of the article itself to make a quick assessment about whether the linked material likely to be more or less interesting than the article I am currently reading. Even in the best case this is a small speedbump that can break flow.
I think that maybe the links can all be at the end in a reference section like place. It might feel quite formal, but it doesn’t break the flow.
This fits into my bigger impression that the second-best writing is easily navigable, with headers and signposts that can let me find the bits I want. The best writing just sucks me in from the first sentence and I don’t at any point even think to assess which bits might be relevant because I am so immersed.