In other nitpickery on word usage, I'm wondering at Mitch Wagner's usage of "My weblog format is mostly smouched." Pouched? Smooched? Interesting neolgism whose source I'm curious about. And with respect to my friend-since-we-were-tadpoles Patrick, and with respect to the estimable BoingBoing, putting a link at the end requires a tad less creativity and discipline than a sestina. I can do the former a great deal more easily than the latter, but perhaps it's just me, and everyone else generates sestinas as fluently as putting a period at the end of a sentence.

That creativity in linking can sometimes be fun, though I claim no great skill in it myself, nor do I have any plaint regarding BoingBoing, if that's not clear from lack of said plaint.

"Their single-linking seems like a bit of a straightjacket."

Or, alternatively, a strait-jacket. I guess the other thing is a, uh, very, straight jacket. All angles. Or something. Uncaptivating.

I use inline links on my own blog, but I like BoingBoing's format just fine.

It's a nice discipline. It means you always know a BoingBoing post is ultimately about one link, and you know where to find that link.

By comparison, I might write free verse, but enjoy sestinas. BoingBoing's format is like a sestina.

Loser says what?

Well, I have to say that BoingBoing was really the first blog I took a lot of interest in and I've pretty much adapted (okay, swiped :P) their format for my own site. Over the months it's been online though, I've started inserting the links into my site descriptions instead of posting them at the end, which I did at the beginning - usually using the lazyman's method of simply using blogger's blogmark tool to make the link for me, with whatever page title was presented by the site's owner (or making one if it was untitled).

I finally decided that was so damn ugly I'd just start putting the link within my little rant about whatever site it was I was linking to, because it was more aesthetically pleasing, the way my template was set up. I have to agree with Cory though, regarding the "one article-one link" thing. I like the single-minded focus of it. When a blogger peppers a story with too many links it can be a bit distracting, especially for someone like me on a 56k connection. I simply don't have the time for all those tangent pages to load up - I'd rather read the plug and then make up my mind about whether I'm interested in reading more after I'm through. I try not to include more than two or three per couple paragraphs - and then, only if I think they're pertinent to the main site link or story or idea I want to convey to the reader. Besides, the writing here is good and I come here as much for that as the neato links.

What Klint Said, more or less.

My weblog format is mostly smouched from people who are more knowledgable than I about usability and design - my two main sources are probably Boing Boing and Lileks. I put the link at the front of an entry, rather than at the end, and the text I link from is usually the title of the page I'm linking to.

If I have more than one link, I generally put one each at the beginning of the most appropriate paragraph.

Sometimes I do mix the links in with the text, as Justin seems to espouse, just for the fun of it.

The blog U.S.S. Clueless has a fun way of handling links. Like me, he puts the main thing he's linking to at the front of an entry. The blog has a Star Trek theme, so instead of saying "Link" he says "On Screen." If the link was suggested to him by someone else, he appends, "Via long range sensors," with that phrase linked to the document that was the source of the link. Essays that don't have a single link as a source start out, "Captain's Log." It's cute, it's fun, and it doesn't get old every day.

My blog:

http://drive-thru.org

U.S.S. Clueless

http://denbeste.nu/

I also like to label links. Nothing wrong with saying "You can find so-and-so here," with the word "here" hyperlinked to the page in question.

The only problem I have with BoingBoing's format is that all the links are called "link". WTF? Besides breaking Google, it's not very helpful. I'm just sayin'!

Other than that? The bee's knees.

yes, i appreciate having the link's content presented in a nutshell. also, though i've only met him briefly, from reading his site it seems justin was musing more than complaining.

one thing though - bb has tons of readers and it seems that only a small percentage actively participate in the discussions. if i've read something that a. piques my curiousity b. i know something about or c. i want to know more about and i have a few spare moments, i'll look up a picture or link that expands on or illustrates the topic and post it in the discussion. so do some of the other commenters. quick topic is great in the fact that you can subscribe to the discussion and receive it by email. that way you can get more information delivered to your inbox all day without having to come back to the page.

Edited by author 07-12-2002 12:06 AM
I liked the format of BB so much I swiped it for my own blog. I occasionally include inline links in addition to the final link, however.

The fact that he is *complaining* that Boing Boing "reeks of clarity" is reason enough to discount his comments.