Wriging

However many happen to be relevant for any one post.

..for me, that can vary from one, to ten or more - if one sticks to relevant topics or information, then people tend to follow those links naturally.

Some links will always attract more attention, but from the occasional time spent going through google analytics click-through metrics - relevancy seems to be the top motivator.

I think there are several kinds of linkers:

- Those who link anything relevant (sometimes *anything*)
- Those who link that they consider essential
- Those who hardly link at all

I'm an essentialist linker :) And you?

As many that will fit in the database field, I guess....

@brendan: I understand the importance of linking "relevant" subjects but there will be times when there are a lot of relevant links (e.g. ways to save turtles, or turtle-related websites) but we just can't link to them all, right? Back to my question, what is the maximum number of links will you insert into your post, considering there are quite a number of relevant sites in the Internet?

@Anne: I am also an essentialist, but then again, both of us may define "essential" differently :)

@Oli: Seriously? LOL.

I link everything that has a significant web presence and a significant mention in the post. If I was talking about how cool my friend Timmy was I would link to his blog if he had one. If I mentioned by pal John in passing I wouldn't bother to link to his MySpace page. Get what I'm saying?

Consider me a "relevant linker."

Oh, I think I was missing the point of your question. Are you saying if I was writing about (for example) the NYSE how many of the hundreds of sites about the NYSE would I link to?

Easy: One. (Probably the first one that shows up under a broad Google search)

It really depends on your topic. If you're writing something with a massively complex argument in, you'll probably have to source many links.

Like this beaut: 121 links showing that Sony are shit

Or consider this Encyclopedia entry on style (what's in a name):

It's even worse than Wikipedia's linking mania.

If the link would help the reader I'd add it in. Simple as that. The problem would be the presentation of said links - which part of the article should I put it in, within brackets or without, in one convenient location (like at the bottom of the post) or otherwise?

Boing Boing includes links to articles at the very end. I like their system.

link

@carmodyarc: I used to link to only ONE (most) relevant site. Until I realized that my readers could benefit from a couple more reads. But I'm not sure where I should draw the line :)

@Oli: The list you have is AWESOME! You know, I think we can compile a similar list of complaints to our Malaysian National Broadband provider. But yea, I can see what you're trying to say :)

@Anne: That was exactly what I wanted to point out :) With an article that contains so many links, I wouldn't want to click on any of them. Let alone other people!

@shadowsun7: So you're suggesting a "Reference" kind of way to list the links, and it's up to the readers whether they'd want to click on any of them..? So, are 5 links the maximum? Or 10? :)

It depends on what I'm writing. If I am proving an argument I will link to every point for proof. Usually I have one or two - enough for the reader to follow what I'm saying. I'm not a cnet where I link to every thought I have a previous article about.

One thing that really irks me is when a link is about lobster for example and the link takes me to someone that wrote about lobster, the last paragraph, the 2nd to last sentence.

It all depends on what I'm writing. When I link to things in articles it's usually for clarification, or to illustrate a point, especially when it's a news story. Similarly, when I quote someone or reference something said, I try to get a link to what I'm quoting so there's some verifiable way to tell people I'm not just making it up.

I try to keep the links to a minimum, unless it's a link dump post where I'm just linking to a pile of things I've found.

Links are like deodorant. Use only when necessary. Too much and you end up stinking the whole place.

I think at the end of it, links are used to make a point or reference it. How you display them to people is what makes people click on them or not.

Kinda why most ads really fail. It isn't necessary and people don't need to click on them.

@Tyme & peroty: "I'm not a cnet where I link to every thought I have a previous article about." and "I try to keep the links to a minimum, unless it's a link dump post where I'm just linking to a pile of things I've found." Couldn't agree more :)

@Kami: The deodorant analogy was a good one! Thanks :)

@Kami: you always have the best analogies, I'm so jelouse :p

I hardly ever link. In general, I only link to things that are specifically referenced in my post. So, if I am taking directly about another post/page/site somewere, I'll link it.

If it's something general, then no.

I figure everyone's got a search in their toolbar by now, and it's quicker for them to search for what they want than for me to try and decide.

Example: I mention bands in passing, but I never link to them. I mean, how would I know what my reader wants? Their myspace page? Their website (which usually points to myspace)? Amazon to buy the CD? iTunes to buy the CD?

I try to not think about the possibilites of what I could link to... Maybe I'll just start linking to google searches.