Kathy Gill today bemoans the lack of hyperlinks on NYTimes.com.
I’m with her, but to me it seems more like laziness than an overall lack of links.
NYT is guilty of what a lot of journalists-that-are-new-to-the-web are guilty of: linking seemingly random words to seemingly random phrases. For example, linking the word Facebook to Facebook.com, or to a home-brewed topic page on Facebook.
The problem is, NYT’s journalists are not “new to the web;” they’re one of the most visible journalism brands on Earth, and they should do better.
The point of hyperlinks is to offer more context and insight into what’s being reported — to add value. What’s the value in linking the word “Facebook” to your own Facebook’s topic page? Like Kathy says, why don’t they link to a page when they drop the phrase “believed by many”?
Who are these many? How many are there? That would be valuable context for me to have.