An opinion on OPs with nothing but links in them

[Adelante]

There's no rule on this, so I am only making a suggestion for the good of GD-P community. There's been a tradition, at least, of copying and pasting part of the content from a link when it is posted as an OP. Sometimes people include original commentary, but not always, when it's meant as information not analysis. Others provide analysis and use links as backup to their point of view.

What's becoming more and more common are OPs with a link and nothing else. Some people don't like clicking through links when they don't know what it's about and may leave the information unread, exit the thread without participating. This may be at a cost to the discussion part of the thread.

Additionally, links don't last forever, yet threads do. For people reading the DU archives, maybe seeking a discussion they remember having taken place, if the link is dead in the future, they won't be able to locate the original information. DU threads turn up on Google searches and empty OPs on a political discussion board is a kind of lame thing, it's unproductive and it's not like bandwidth comes for free.

I'm hoping you will consider copying and pasting some of the original information in your OPs rather than simple links. Even in poll threads, a few lines, the main numbers offering more than a link referral.

I don't mean to be pushing DUers around on this, but I suggest more thought be given to the substance of OPs.

Thank you for considering. :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Hear, hear!

If I open a post and there are only links without explanation, I don't bother to click on the links. I often have limited time at the computer and going to another link often takes a while on the systems I run. So why waste time on a link that may not be anything I'm interested in? Kicking and recommending.

[Vickers]

2. "I don't bother to click on the links."

Bingo.

I also hate incomplete enigmatic thread titles, you know like, "What if (candidate) were to..."

I put all of those on Ignore.

[Adelante]

9. I knew you were out there

[suziedemocrat]

18. Same here.

I also hate it when someone posts an OP that assumes you have been following a story as closely the the OPer has. I come here a lot and open new threads and think ... wtf? A little summary for the average Joe would help a lot. In fact, I think it is rude not to have a summary of the story so far, or an excerpt from the link.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. K & R, common sense advice.

The text from the link is a hook for me to click and read the entire article or post.

A post saying "read this" and containing nothing more than a link demonstrates little commitment on the part of the OP that this be a part of our marketplace of ideas.

:toast:

:kick:

MKJ

[hvn_nbr_2]

22. Bingo!

A post saying "read this" and containing nothing more than a link demonstrates little commitment on the part of the OP that this be a part of our marketplace of ideas.

When an OPer wants hundreds of people to go watch a video of unknown length and unknown subject, just because he/she said so, but they don't respect us enough to give us even a hint of what it's about, well, I just don't have time for it. They must surely have a very high opinion of their own importance to think that everyone will go somewhere just because they said so.

[Raejeanowl]

4. I'm On Board With This, Too

It's annoying. Tell me more before I get involved, just a little summary.

Otherwise, it's just a drive-by OP (here's something newsworthy-go get it), frustrating as replies that do no more than chime in "yeah" or "nay" without adding a little nugget of information or insight to the discussion.

I've been guilty of the latter when time is crunched, but try to keep it minimized.

K & R

[Warpy]

5. That's about third on my list of annoying post

the blind link with nothing to describe what it's about or a paragraph or two to encourage one to read the rest. It's beyond annoying, so much so that I never click on those links and have occasionally included a tart message to the OP to provide additional information if he thinks that link is so godawful important.

Still, it pales beside the "TURN ON CNN NOW!!! I'M SERIES!!111" with no elucidation of why and often no message at all in the post. It still frosts my arse now when I have access to CNN but would rather have my teeth drilled than watch most of what they consider to be programming. You want me to watch, give me a fucking hint.

The second worst DU post is the one suffering from whinorrhea, about how someone's superhero candidate is getting treated so-ooo-oo unfairly by critics on the site. Butch up, people, we're Democrats, we think for ourselves and we're allowed to disagree. Alert on posts you think are inappropriate, like the ones that say Ron Paul is superior to your candidate, just realize that if god is dead, your candidate didn't get the job. Put away the crying towel and try to come up with a post that tells us why your candidate is so great.

/rant off

[Evergreen Emerald]

6. I sometimes do that

and many times it is because the issue was so recent that I assume it is common knowledge.

[HughMoran]

10. May be a bad assumption

People come and go often and may not be following the latest drama.

[Adelante]

12. And that always shows

by the number of people early in the thread saying WTF are you talking about? And then it has to be explained anyway. By the time it's all clear, how many readers have clicked on the thread glanced at the OP and clicked out again without reading or posting?

[HughMoran]

14. Yep, your point is well taken

I agree.

[bluerum]

7. Requiring click throughs is bad design,,,

I hate links pointing to RW swamps like faux news or even worse - the free re-pubic with no clear warning.

Links should clearly indicate where they lead to. Not everyone knows how to check the URL in a link before clicking it.

[EV_Ares]

11. You never want to click on a link unless you know where it is going to

lead you.

[bluerum]

20. I HATE giving clicks to faux and the free re-pubic

[Auntie Bush]

8. Excellent OP WesDem. Let's keep this kicked so everyone can see it

and learn a thing or two.

I can't stand posts that are just a link. It must be so annoying for those without high speed.
who wants to wait and wait just to see what the subject is about.

[rucky]

13. Do you have any links that support this argument?

:evilgrin:

[Adelante]

15. Good one!

:evilgrin:

[Canuckistanian]

16. As a dialup user, I agree wholeheatedly

Sometimes, there will be an OP titled "Holy Shit!" and it's nothing but a Youtube link.

All those high-speed access people have to realize that your average 2-minute Youtube can take up to 20 minutes to load on dial-up.

If I consider a video sufficiently important, I'll wait for it or DL it later.

But casual viewing just to find out what the OP is referring to is out of the question.

[Alamom]

21. Great Point. I had dial up for a couple of years and missed so many

good articles, pictures and films. I have high speed cable now and it's wonderful to see all the stuff going though links, but I feel for you.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Agree and also for future use the title and author of an article

are helpful when the link is dead.

:thumbsup:

Dec 1, 2007

US 'declaration' a setback for Maliki
By Sami Moubayed

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL01Ak01.html

"DAMASCUS - Sometimes, frequently nowadays, one doubts the wisdom of decision-makers in Washington. The case was clear, for example, with Syria and Palestine. When President George W Bush comes out to praise political prisoners in Damascus, he completely ruins their credibility in the Syrian Street, projecting them as stooges for the United States. When he embraces Mahmud Abbas of Palestine, the same impression is made on ordinary Palestinians who immediately write off their president as a puppet for Washington, making it difficult for him - if not impossible - to discuss peace with Israel.

The situation now applies to Iraq as well..."

[Adelante]

19. That's a good point

Date, title, author, and publication name would be useful for when links later die, because it keeps the citation valid and findable. Thanks.

[avrdream]

23. Agree completely.

I just don't bother with the link if there isn't any more information.

[Cameron27]

24. Bravo WD

:applause:

[question everything]

25. Adding my agreement

this is especially true when the link is to freeperland, or Drudge, or Fox.

Yes, we should be aware of what the other side is saying, but why provide them the "hits" for them to claim a wide readership?

[eppur_se_muova]

26. Not to mention -- some links wedge or crash my browser, DU doesn't.

A link to a site I'm unfamiliar with has a minimal claim on my attention; one with no excerpt gets ~zero.

If there's no excerpt (video, pdf file, etc.) at least make up a good descriptive title.