‘lazy’ link submissions
One thing I’ve grown to dislike in forums and alike spaces over the years are link submissions specifically, especially without any text by the poster accompanying it.
I think link submissions suffer the orange-site-disease1: Just posting the link is very low effort and the readers respond accordingly. People will write the response based on the title only, or, if they do click on it, skim it because they want to be the first to comment on that thing and taking longer to read might mean someone else gets to say the thing first and get more attention and upvotes. I can’t otherwise explain why responses emerge from link threads on all kinds of sites are so off sometimes.
In my experience, the responses I find off will either be
The Repeater: Will just repeat what the link content said, but somehow make it sound like it didn’t and they came up with it as a continuation or improvement. It’s like the kid in class who raised their hand after someone else was done and said the same thing.
The Bigbrain: Is just saying it is all sooo obvious and they knew it already, just to flex. They’re above it all, nothing has to be said ever because it’s common sense. Like duuuh, you morons still think about the basic stuff like this? Hmpf.
The Skimmer: Only reads over it quickly searching for keywords. Somehow connects things that aren’t connected thematically or even implied in the link at all. Will occasionally also hallucinate like an LLM and invent things said in the article that were never said. “The author says…” but the author didn’t say it. Anywhere.
The field mine: Specific keywords in titles set them off. They are filled with rage and sadness and need to vent about these words, but it’s not connected to the link content at all. They are so preoccupied with finding a mention of a topic that they finally have to get off their chest that they cannot take in or process what’s actually there or if it fits. “I wolfed down the food” will serve as a perfect spot to unload why you hate wolves.
For me, that makes replies hard to engage with. If I put the time into replying to something, I want it to be toward people who actually took the time to come prepared. You obviously didn’t give me or the author your time, why should I give you mine after this? There’s a visible difference between misunderstandings and just plain signs you didn’t do the homework.
What can be done about it
I think for one, if possible and fitting for the link content, the link submission should be copied in full into the forum post.
It’s good for posterity and people are forced to scroll past the entirety of it and catch glimpses that might draw them in to read it. It also makes it harder to just quickly scroll down and type away based on an assumption, which acts to sieve out people who want to post a quick, halfbaked take. That’s also why forums like Tildes put the comment box at the bottom after all the other comments, instead of on top.2
This is also nicer for people who want to copy parts from the original text into their response, which to me means a deeper engagement with the actual presented text, not an idea of what the title hints at. Make it easier for people to go back to text passages so they can argue against what was said, not what they remembered. Encourage it.
If this cannot be done or there’s no wish to do so, I think the response types above are lessened when the link is presented with a little text by the poster. What do they think about their own submission? Why did they post it? What was their highlight? What are their experiences with that?
This makes people want to understand where the poster is coming from before replying, and they are encouraged to read the link to get the full context, because many don’t want to engage with the thread poster’s views without at least looking the context over.
The original author of the link is sadly not usually treated like someone you don’t want to misunderstand or put words into their mouth, because the content is treated like it’s just there to click and quickly consume and you’re not engaging directly. But you do engage with this poster directly, so you tend to make more of an effort to not be a presumptuous ass.
It gives people a way to properly engage with the link topic. The people who post them have (usually) read the content attentively and obviously want to share it for a reason - if they write their view and additions to start the discussion, it has already been filtered and interpreted by a person who was more careful with reading. People already go in with a certain understanding then. This isn’t always the case, of course, and it can backfire; but I think the likelihood is higher that it makes people who got the wrong impression by a title or quick skim stop to reconsider.
In general, I wish forum replies would engage even more with each other. Ask: “Where did you read that? Can you give me a quote? But they already said that here. Doesn’t the author agree/disagree with you here?” I mean, the link submission is there for a reason. Pick it apart and use it to pick other’s responses apart. It quickly goes in circles when the forum thread is only used to engage with the topic on a surface guesswork level and then the replies are just busy with each other and it quickly moves away from the topic.
As a final word, I also want to say: It’s a bit of a nice-to-have courtesy that you present writing from someone else in a way that gives it a fair shot. You can’t force anyone to do this (I know this, as someone whose blog posts frequently get dragged into link aggregators and forums, and as an ex-forum mod) but it elevates the community and replies too and sets an example for how you want people to engage with your submissions.
Related, Rebecca Solnit made a great post I think applies here too.
Reply via email
Published 23 Jan, 2025