Links to sources

1. 96

   Rupert Taylorposted 2 years ago

   It is my habit to list the sources I use for each article at the end and to link to those that have an internet presence. But sometimes I get this message from HubPages:
   
   "We noticed you have a number of links grouped together. To keep your article Featured, please incorporate useful, relevant links into the sentence structure of your article."
   
   My understanding is that by linking within the text you are encouraging people to click on the link thereby leaving your page. That doesn't sound like a good idea.

   replyreport
   1. 99

      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You are correct. I only include hyperlinks in the article if it is very helpful or articles on the same site. It does send people off to other sites, which is bad for HP.
      
      Not much we can do about those letters from the editors though. If they do unfeature an article because of that I would write the team at HP and let them know.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      bravewarriorposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you Rupert. The only way to avoid that is to hold the Control key while clicking on the link; that opens the link in a new window.
      
      That said, references are usually found at the bottom of the page. Within the text itself, small numbers are placed slightly above the area(s) or the name of the source are put in parentheses then are more fully referenced below the article, with correlating numbers for each.
      
      Another way to cite your sources can be found in this article:
      
      https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/writing/cite_sources

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Didn't hubpages want visitors to stay put on their sites again? Why try diverting readers attention from reading the article further? I found this very curious.

      replyreport
2. 97

   PaulGoodman67posted 2 years ago

   Rupert - It's not fully clear to me what you are doing that inspires these messages from HP. I've used both in-text and source lists for years and not encountered this.
   
   What does "links grouped together" mean?
   
   I can't help but wonder if there's some specific issue in your case?
   
   In-text links are generally the way sources are done nowadays. I just see HP as reflecting the general norm.
   
   I don't think that people do necessarily click on the links all that often, but regardless, I think HP are right on this.
   
   Links can also be a factor in SEO. That may also be an issue in this case, I don't know.
   
   What about linking to an article that HP complained about, so we can see it here?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Rupert Taylorposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It's still in the swill bucket of HubPages, so I don't know if you can see it, but here's the link I have
      
      https://hubpages.com/hubtool/edit/6041095
      
      It's interesting to note that during the mammoth editing task just completed I was asked to provide links to sources. Previously, I did not add links because I recalled vaguely this was something the Big G did not like.
      
      Conflicting information all around. Time for a nap.

      replyreport
      1. 97

         PaulGoodman67posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         That link doesn't work for me.
         
         It sounds like you used a poor source for info about linking. Google doesn't like spammy links. But links to reputable sites have never been bad, they add credibility.

         replyreport
      2. 99

         Shesabutterflyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         The link did not work for me either. I'm assuming the subtitle reads along the lines of resources/sources/ect? How many links are you putting in?
         
         When editors went through Pethelpful at the beginning of the year, they added 3-4 links with the subtitle "sources and further reading" or in some cases it simply says "further reading" with links to other not as reliable sites. I went in and changed some of those links, but I had to keep some links to stay on Pethelpful at the time. I thought it was odd, especially since they kept linking out to SprucePets (which is one of Pethelpful's top competition sites and is not one I would call an authority over HP).
         
         Sounds like these new editors might want resources linked in a different way, which is honestly kind of annoying. It's hard to keep up and know what is and is not accepted when the guidelines are constantly changing and we are not being informed in advance.
         
         Maybe it comes down to different editor's having different preferences?

         replyreport
         1. 97

            PaulGoodman67posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            My view is that they're doing work to add sources to increase credibility. I've had the add sources request from them, just not the "links grouped together" problem.
            
            There may be SEO reasons too for their link changes, I can't be certain.
            
            Google is effectively the judge and jury on what counts as "reputable." It may not be what you and I consider reputable. The way I see it, if Google has placed something high in the rankings, then it's "reputable" by definition.

            replyreport
            1. 99

               Shesabutterflyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I know we are at the whim of Google, but I'd prefer not to be linked out to similar competition. Especially competition that is sharing controversial or wrong information, no matter how high Google would like to rank it. Generally speaking though I've found more relavent Pethelpful links above SprucePets. At least at the time of the Pethelpful overhaul when I was working on my articles.
               
               Linking out only gives them more of an advantage over HP, so why not keep the links on the niche site? Why would we want to give Google more ammunition to think a site that is like ours is better? I get linking out to ASPCA, Cesar, AKC, ect, but not to a site that has changed and evolved to be exactly like HP. We are only giving them more of an advantage by linking back to them.
               
               We have an expert here in the niche one of my articles was on. I switched all my article links to Pethelpful or other actual resource type links. I'd rather try and help a fellow HP member than some other content site I don't agree with. They accepted the changes, so I'm assuming it didn't really matter where the links were to.

               replyreport
3. 0

   Beth Eaglescliffeposted 2 years ago

   Is this the article you are referring to? https://owlcation.com/humanities/Twin-P … -Both-Fake
   
   My thoughts about the sources list at the end is that by including links here you are duplicating information. You have given all the information (title, publication, date, author etc) that someone needs if they want to find the original document. You don't need to include links in this list as well.
   
   Alternatively, an in-text link in the body of an article is a shorthand way of providing this reference information and saves you having to list sources at the end.

   replyreport
4. 95

   Glenn Stokposted 2 years ago

   I always use ASA style for my references listed at the end. It’s crucial to provide credible sources to get onto the niche sites, especially for YMYL articles.
   
   As for the choice of in-text hyperlinks, I have received confirmation from staff that it’s our choice, and editors should accept either method.
   
   However, some editors make their own judgments from my experience, and all I had to do was notify staff, and my preference was included in the editors’ notes.

   replyreport
5. 96

   Rupert Taylorposted 2 years ago

   Thanks to everyone for your suggestions.
   
   The message I get is one of those computer-generated things that appear in a box top right of the article submission. Another favourite is one that says "This article is in danger of being rejected as overly promotional" (or words to that effect) after I've written the intro but before I've posted the article.
   
   The villainous piece in question here is about a shipwreck in 1120 that took out a huge percentage of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. It's not the fake Parisian cities story Beth.
   
   It seems, as I suspected, that the link to HubPages only works for the author. If it is deemed worthy of going onto Discover I will post the link, but I don't know that this will shed much light.

   replyreport
6. 97

   PaulGoodman67posted 2 years ago

   Linking to sources is certainly something that HP've got more and more strict about over time.

   replyreport
7. 96

   Rupert Taylorposted 2 years ago

   The contentious article has been elevated to the exalted heights of Discover, but I don't think it will answer any questions as to why it was threatened with being unfit for featuring because of a cluster of links.
   
   https://discover.hubpages.com/education … yal-Family

   replyreport
   1. 97

      PaulGoodman67posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I had a look, and I can't see what the source list problem is. Have you tried emailing the editors for clarification?
      
      You could maybe try making the sources into in-text links and see if that helps?
      
      I have quite a few articles in the niches with source lists that seem to be okay. That said, I do more often use in-text links with the new material I write, as that seems to be the thing nowadays.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         Rupert Taylorposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Paul. I needed to sample the opinion in the forum before consulting the editors.

         replyreport
         1. 97

            PaulGoodman67posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Why?

            replyreport
8. 73

   Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

   If the in-text link is the thing nowadays(no doubt about that), has hubpages strongly recommended it to be employ in our articles?

   replyreport
9. 96

   Rupert Taylorposted 2 years ago

   The oracle hath spoken. It boils down to author choice. In text, if that's your fancy, or clustered at the end if you prefer that. It makes the notice that triggered this thread entirely superfluous.
   
   My apologies for wasting everybody's time.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      No, you don't waste our time. It's part of the learning process ever. Now, I know what to do with an in-text link sparely where appropriate.

      replyreport
10. 95

    Glenn Stokposted 2 years ago

    You're right, Rupert. You were correct all along. It indeed is our choice. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, HubPages staff confirmed that when I questioned them. Just remember to use ASA style when placing references at the bottom for better SEO.

    replyreport