Is Linking to Yourself the Future of the Web?(都把链接指向自己就是Web的未来?)

Tim O'Reilly Tim O'Reilly 2008-08-18

Last year, Bill Janeway really got my attention (pdf) when he noted that "over time, Wall Street 'firms began to trade against their clients for their own account, such that now, the direct investment activities of a firm like Goldman Sachs dwarf their activities on behalf of outside customers.'" As I wrote in my blog post at the time, Trading for Their Own Account, "I thought, whither Google, Yahoo! and Amazon?"

At the time, I noted the way that more and more information that was once delivered by independent web sites was now being delivered directly by search engines, and that rather than linking out to others, there were strong signs of a trend towards keeping the link flow to themselves.

This thought re-surfaced when Techcrunch launched Crunchbase. Now, rather than linking directly to companies covered in its stories, Techcrunch links to one of its own properties to provide additional information about them. I noticed the same behavior the other day on the New York Times, when I followed a link, and was taken to a search result for articles on the subject at the Times (with lots of ads, even if there were few results).

Journalism professor Jay Rosen noticed this too, and wrote the tweet that sparked this post:

@NYTimesComm Could you try to find out for me why Week in Review pieces do not link out even when vital to the story? http://is.gd/1Hzd

Follow Jay's link and you come to a story that indeed doesn't have any outbound links, except to other Times stories. Now, I understand the value of linking to other articles on your own site -- everyone does it -- but to do so exclusively is a small tear in the fabric of the web, a small tear that will grow much larger if it remains unchecked.

Business Week is also getting into the act, per a New York Times article entitled Topic Pages to Be Hub of New BusinessWeek Site:

The core of Business Exchange is hundreds of topic pages, on subjects as broad as the housing market and as narrow as the Boeing 787. Plans call for the number of topic pages to grow quickly into the thousands. (The first one created, which may or may not be in the public version of Business Exchange, was “BlackBerry vs iPhone.”)

Want to place a bet whether articles in the magazine will link exclusively to these "topic pages?" At least Business Week plans to have outbound links from the topic pages (Crunchbase does this too, just siphoning off the first step in the link stream, unlike the NYT roach-motel links.)

Each Business Exchange topic page links to articles and blog posts from myriad other sources, including BusinessWeek’s competitors, with the contents updated automatically by a Web crawler. Nearly all traditional news organizations offer only their own material, spurning the role of aggregator as an invitation to readers to leave their sites.

When this trend spreads (and I say "when", not "if"), this will be a tax on the utility of the web that must be counterbalanced by the utility of the intervening pages. If they are really good, with lots of useful, curated data that you wouldn't easily find elsewhere, this may be an acceptable tax. In fact, they may even be beneficial, and a real way to increase the value of the site to its readers. If they are purely designed to capture additional clicks, they will be a degradation of the web's fundamental currency, much like the black hat search engine pages that construct link farms out of search engine results.

I'd like to put out two guidelines for anyone adopting this "link to myself" strategy:

  1. Ensure that no more than 50% of the links on any page are to yourself. (Even this number may be too high.)

  2. Ensure that the pages you create at those destinations are truly more valuable to your readers than any other external link you might provide.

The web is a great example of a system that works because most sites create more value than they capture. Maybe the tragedy of the commons in its future can be averted. Maybe not. It's up to each of us.

翻译:xiaochong

去年Bill Janeway引起我的关注(pdf),他指出“随着时间的推移华尔街公司已经开始为自己交易,而与自己的客户去竞争,Goldman Sachs这样的公司自己的直接投资活动无疑削弱了他们站在外部客户立场上应该做的事情。”当时我在博客里写了“为自己做事”,“我在思考Google、Yahoo!和Amazon又何尝不是如此?”

当时我指出越来越多一度由独立Web网站提供的信息现在搜索引擎直接提供了,而且现在有很强的迹象显示这些巨头更喜欢把链接指向自己,而不是外部其它网站。

看到Techcrunch发布Crunchbase,这个想法又浮现出来。现在Techcrunch不再将链接直接指向报道中涉及的公司了,而是指向它自己提供公司附加信息的网站。我也注意到纽约时报类似的做法,当我点击一个链接结果被带到了纽约时报文章搜索结果页面(很多广告,却没什么结果)。

新闻学教授Jay Rosen也注意到这一点,他在Tweeter的发言让我写了这个帖子

@ nytimescomm能不能告诉我为什么Week in Review的文章即使很关键的情况下也不把链接指向外面?http://is.gd/1hzd

点击Jay的链接你看到的文章没有任何向外的链接,只有指向其他纽约时报报道的链接。现在我理解将链接指向自己网站上文章的价值了——所有人都这么做——这是Web全网上的一个小裂口,但是如果不予以关注这个小裂口将会变大。

商业周刊也参与进来,纽约时报有篇文章“Topic pages是商业周刊网站的中心”:

Business Exchange的核心是数百页主题页面,主题可以像房地产市场那样宽泛也可以像波音787那样窄。计划希望主题页面迅速增长至数千级别。(第一个创建的是“黑莓对iPhone”,不一定在Business Exchange的公开版本中。)

拭目以待杂志里的文章会指向这些“主题页面”?至少商业周刊希望主题页面有指向外部的链接(Crunchbase也是这样,他们只是控制了一下链接流的第一步,和纽约时报不同,纽约时报占有了那些链接)。

Business Exchange主题页面链接了无数外部文章和博客帖子,包括商业周刊的竞争对手,内容通过Web爬虫自动更新。几乎所有传统新闻机构都只提供自己的资料,没有成为一个集大成的角色将读者指离自己的网站。

当这种趋势蔚然成风之时(我是说“当”,而不是“如果”),它将成为Web效能的负担,这需要由那些页面的效能来弥补。如果它们足够好,包含很多其它地方找不到的、有用的、丰富的数据,那这将是个可接受的负担。实际上甚至有可能是有收益的,是一个给网站读者带来更多价值的做法。如果这一切只是用来获得更多点击,那将是Web本质流通性的一种退化,就很像恶棍搜索引擎的页面,用搜索结果构建自己的链接领地。

我希望给要采取这种“把链接指向自己”战略的人提两点指导:

1.确保任意页面上不要有超过50%的链接指向你自己。(其实50%已经很高了。)

2.确保那些你作为链接指向目标的页面真正对读者有更高价值,超过外部网站可能提供的价值。

Web是一个典型例子,这样的系统中大多数网站创造的价值比它索取的要多。未来这种公用性悲剧也许可以避免,也许不能。这取决于我们每个人。

Discussion

miraclelee, 2008/08/19

群众的眼睛是雪亮的。短视行为。

zijian li, 2008/08/22

另一种作法更深恶痛绝:很多网站把一篇文章、一个报道强行分成多页,只为提高PV.强奸读者。

Nolympic, 2008/08/27

网络冬天了,活下去是最重要的,顾不了那么许多。

Enter your comment (wiki syntax is allowed):
blog/tim/is-linking-to-yourself-the-future-of-the-web.txt · 最后更改: 2008/09/08 由 radarman
O'Reilly Home | Privacy Policy ©2005-2008, O'Reilly Media, Inc.
All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on oreilly.com are the property of their respective owners.