Ars Technica, You’re a Member of the Internet, Start Linking Like It

At the risk of sounding accusatory or morally superior, I feel the need to comment on something that I’ve noticed for a long while now (and after a few discussions, I’m hardly the only one): Ars Technica hardly ever links to anyone but themselves.

Let me just say that I think Ars Technica is for the most part very well-written and looks nice, but seriously what is up with them quite often coming late upon a story, giving summations that are often little more than a dozen other things that I’ve read in the days leading up to their’s, and yet they never seem to link to anyone but themselves? Are we to believe that they simply come up with these stories completely by themselves out of the blue even though most of the Internet has been talking about them for hours or even days beforehand? Maybe they do not use the Internet except to press the ‘Post’ button?

There are an almost inexhaustible number of places where they should probably link to a source, and just don’t – even when they mention them! Here’s one example:

First rumored by AppleInsider, CNBC is now *confirming* the existence of preproduction models of the MacBook Thin

You might think that link above would go to AppleInsider and not to another Ars Technica story – but you’d be wrong.

Now I’m not saying that I’m the absolute best at external linking – because I’m certainly not – but I do try to do my best to give credit where credit is due while still referencing earlier thoughts of mine. The way Ars Technica seems to go about their business, you’d think that aside from press releases or a few official pages, they’ve hardly ever read another site in their lives – something which I just have a very hard time believing – especially when the entirety of the Internet is talking about something often hours before they weigh in with some of the very same points and ideas.

I would simply say to the folks at Ars Technica, you’re a member of the Internet, why not act like it? I’d recommend you read over Louisgray’s post about Internal Linking and consider how it makes you look to the rest of us out here in Internet land. No website is an island.

[UPDATE]: Duncan Riley has a very to-the-point post with the very similar thoughts from July. The example he gave apparently even caused Ars to go back and give a link to the story he notes!

I’ll give an example of the title “phenomenon” from my own site:

December 11th at 11AM I publish: ‘NBC Continues the “Anyone But Apple” Approach, Puts Content on SanDisk Service

Same day at 10:05PM Ars Technica publishes: “NBC continues anything-but-Apple strategy with SanDisk deal

I wish that were the only example…

  • Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
    There is all kinds of goobery things that go on in the A-List that bug the heck out of me in relation to linking. The school of blogging I came from applied liberal usage of linking, as most posts are written conversationally, and no idea is truly original.


    It seems to me, from where I sit and observe, to be a sort of cold war brewing in the alistosphere. even though certain members of big blogs occasionally talk with one another... cross linking in a conversational manner rarely happens. No one is willing to take the first step in linking to the other guy, either.



    I think it is a shame, personally. If you take a look at the way cross linking occurs in the political space (just gander a moment over at memeorandum) and look how it happens over in our world (see techmeme), you'll understand what I'm getting at.
  • MG Siegler
    @rizzn - I absolutely know what you are getting at, I think the link love is much more true of sports and other subjects' blogs as well. Possibly because big tech has become almost obsessed with breaking news - i'm sure you saw Allen Stern's post on embargoes earlier - and is less focused on the conversations like those other subjects are.


    Some people are excellent with links - Mathew Ingram comes to mind off the top of my head (obviously you're good as well) - but I don't think I've seen any site as bad as Ars Technica.



    If there's a war brewing, I'll be ready with my anchor tags.
  • Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
    I think that some of the bigger blogs don't have a problem getting folks to blog on their content, which is why they may avoid it.


    Mashable, despite being one of the bigger blogs in terms of readership, doesn't seem to have the volume of conversational trackbacks that say a techcrunch has. I imagine that has something to do with the differing demographics of our readership, but one of the biggest tips I give beginning bloggers to grow their blog is to liberally apply the outgoing links to others talking about the same topics you are.



    Very few things are as effective as that in terms of growing a steady, sustainable reader-base. In my experience, at any rate (while which is long and extensive is probably not the final word on the topic).
  • MG Siegler
    @rizzn - i think that is definitely good advice and probably the correct rationale behind some linking practices.


    Also realize I completely messed up that link to the Allen Stern piece (which oddly enough I accidentally made a link to myself :) ) the rest article is here.
  • louisgray
    I still think we need something like a "reverse Technorati" that shows how often we link out to others. How many times did I link to Paris Lemon vs. he to me? We'll never know.


    I asked this in October.

    http://www.louisgray.com/live/2007/10/who-can-build-inverse-technorati.html



    Offline, Yuvi Panda and I traded e-mails. Our thinking was that the best candidate to build it was... Technorati. But they might not ever.



    A few months ago, when this internal linking discussion popped up, Mashable received some of my initial venom. It seems they've improved since.
  • MG Siegler
    Yeah that is a great idea Louis, I really hope someone steps up and does that.


    As for Mashable I think as you can tell from Mashable writer Rizzn's comments above he's very much in line with your line of thinking. I remember Pete Cashmore wrote a nice post too after the initial blow up clarifying his position on it...as opposed to say, Ars Technica who says nothing.
  • Duncan
    Concur in part with Mark (#1), I can still remember when the blogosphere was small enough that we all happily linked and cross linked and linked some more, but certainly there's a growing trend of not linking out, whether it's an attempt to game credit or for keep readers on site I'm not sure. Also occasionally you get the odd idiot reader when you do link suggesting that you shouldn't be writing on it; I'd think this would be worse for smaller blogs who don't get a lot of original/ exclusive material. The old blogosphere saying "when in doubt, link out" should be taught to the new generation :-)
  • MG Siegler
    Nice to see two of the writers for two of the top dogs weigh in on this in a very positive light.


    I feel like Bill Clinton at the Camp David Summit...not that Mash and TC have been in a 50-year struggle for rights to the same turf, but perhaps your guys' level-headedness about all of this - as well as all of louisgray's great posts on the matter - can keep reminding all of us to not give in to the internal linking trend.
  • dlcharles
    I'm not really clear why Ars or anyone should have linked on the SanDisk story. After all, the "original source" is a press release (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/...). I can see getting upset if a site re-reports a piece of original reporting without attribution, but rewriting a press release--even if you think you're the first person on the Internet to have seen it--is hardly original reporting. Just my two cents.
  • Brodie
    Followed over to this from Louis' post today. Agree with dlcharles… you don't get a scoop for a press release re-write. Don't see any evidence of wrong-doing here, the other examples included.


    Duncan Riley's post doesn't even make sense. He criticizes Ars Technica for "ripping" the story but the first comment on his post is from the blogger who was "ripped," and he says that both his name and the URL were in the story. How is that ripping? Riley retracted for the record:

    http://www.duncanriley.com/2007/07/19/cockups-correctionsand-today-im-having-a-happy-day/



    You say that "Ars Technica hardly ever links to anyone but themselves," but just checking the site I counted more than 30 links in about 5 minutes.



    I will agree that your example of Ars Technica linking to itself is a good one; it's an annoying practice and all of the big blogs do it, probably because it gives them more short term clicks. Ars Technica does link to AI on the second page, but you have to click there to get it first.
  • Anonymous
    It's more than just Ars not giving link love. They've actually gotten a little batter at that.


    Ars often takes existing reports, plucks out the pertinent bits, then rewrites the story...consistently gobbling up the digg and Slashdot traffic that would otherwise go to a variety of originating sources that first discovered the subject matter/report/idea.



    They're something like the fourth most dugg news source, yet a significant number of their reports are rehashes of other pieces they've read elsewhere.



    Note that it doesn't happen all the time, and Ars does have a lot of good original material on select subjects (software/hardware), but watch the time stamps sometime.
blog comments powered by Disqus