Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

What style suggestions are common for which words are used in hyperlinks?

+0
−0

With a purpose of avoiding "More details here" style links that do not provide any information in the link itself, what styles are common/popular/suggested?

A good example case (with bold as the potential link):

John Q. claims that pigs can fly.

John Q. claims that pigs can fly.

John Q. claims that pigs can fly.

John Q. claims that pigs can fly.

John Q. claims that pigs can fly.

John Q. claims that pigs can fly.

And so on. What advantages or disadvantages are known?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/3033. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

A link to the name is generally expected to link to the person, not to an article.

I generally agree with @Craig Sefton, except that I would make "claims that pigs can fly" the link and not just "pigs can fly". It's a claim (by John Q), not a fact; "pigs can fly" could link to, say, a wikipedia page explaining the idiom. It would also be reasonable style, though perhaps too short for good UI, to just link "claims".

In general, think about what is on the other end of the link -- the person? the fact in question? the discussion? Then link accordingly. I can imagine cases where your example would actually have three links -- one for John, one for his claim, and one for airborne pigs.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »