Trouble with 2+ overly promotional rule?

1. 81

   shibashakeposted 15 years ago

   I just joined so I apologize if this is going over well-travelled ground. Is anybody else having problems with the 2+ overly promotional link rule? My article(s) commonly contain specialized terms, or even just people or organizations that may not be familiar to all. As a result I like to link to wikipedia as a reference source, but then I run into the 2+ link rule. Sometimes I may also need to link to wikipedia and other sites as sources for claims made in the article, and I run into  2+ link rule again. IMHO it is overly restrictive.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Maddie Ruudposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      shibashake:
      
      Your hubs were flagged for 2+ links to your own site, not to Wikipedia.  The 2 link rule does not apply to news sites, most wikis, and most non-profits.  For more information, see http://hubpages.com/hub/Overly-Promotional
      
      Hope this clarifies.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         shibashakeposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Maddie,
         Thanks for the clarification. I still think the 2+ rule is a bit overly restrictive though. For example, if I am writing an article on how to deal with dog aggression using clicker training, I may need to utilize many clicker training terms. I probably don't want to explain each of these terms so I may want to just reference my favorite clicker training site (e.g. www.clickertraining.com which is a "commercial site").
         
         Also, I think it is natural for a person to have many related hubs that may want to reference each other, not so much for promotional reasons, but simply because they are related parts of a greater central theme. Like chapters in a book referencing each other. For example, I have more detailed discussions of "leash jerks"  and "alpha rolls" on my website, and when I refer to these terms on my hubs I would like to reference those discussions, not for self promotional reasons, but to provide context. 
         
         Hope this makes sense. I am not trying to change the rules, just expressing my point of view.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Marisa Wrightposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            True, but do you really want your readers clicking back and forth to another site - they're just as likely to go to the training site with the first click and not come back!   Why not create a highlighted text capsule (floated right) containing definitions?
            
            .  Absolutely, that's what Groups are for, or Capstone Hubs - or both!   Again, you could use a highlighted text box to list all the related Hubs.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               shibashakeposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Great suggestions Marisa. Very nicely phrased too. Thanks for your help!

               replyreport
         2. 82

            embitcaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            So bring the context here to hubpages. You can link internally as much as you like, so you could create hubs for each of these detailed discussions you'd like to have. You could have one hub on leash jerks and one on alpha rolls, etc.  Or as Marisa suggests you could provide a box with some explanations of certain terms.
            
            Self-promotion isn't necessarily about "intent". If the site you are linking to is yours, that is by definition 'self promotion' even if the content is in context and/or non-commercial.

            replyreport
2. 82

   embitcaposted 15 years ago

   I don't believe the 2+ link rule applies to authority sites like Wikipedia. It applies to self-promotional links.
   
   Personally, I wouldn't just use Wikipedia as my source for everything. It isn't the only site on the internet. There are plenty of authority sources for all kinds of topics besides Wikipedia and reading a hub that just cites it over and over again makes me think I'd be better off just reading Wikipedia directly.

   replyreport