08 August 2008


It seems my notions about links are wildly unusual (and thanks Jules for adding them Wednesday). My idea is that since we're discussing science here, if you disagree with some point I make, or have a point to add yourself, then it is a good idea to include a link or full reference to a good source. One of the things about doing science is that you don't take people's reporting as gospel. Scientists are people, and people make mistakes. So it's a good idea to make it easy for people to check out the full original source. When you've described something well, they can be thankful for your much better description. Or maybe they can learn more about the topic. Wins all around.

Maybe there's something about how the blog world works that makes this a bad idea. If so, let me know how and why. In the mean time, please make it easy for people to follow up the science you bring up.


Philip H. said...

There's no reason to exclude a good reference or two in a comment or rebuttal. if the anti-global warming crowd did that once in a while, I might be willing to let them speak more often.

Anonymous said...

it helps if you can tell the good references from the bad ones, especially on t'internet.
i was taught to use "P.R.O.M.P.T.", a method where you analyze the reliability of a site by its Provenance, Relevance, Objectivity, Method, Presentation, and Timeliness.
here's a description;

Anonymous said...

Google doesn't distinguish between "Look at this nonsense [link]" and "This is a good source [link]", so you can end up promoting nonsense by linking to it. IMO, it's best to break-up nonsense links with a space or two, but keep the positive links intact.

Anonymous said...

Thank you.
Yes it's rare.
Yes, it's good.



Anonymous said...

> Google doesn't distinguish ...
> you can end up promoting nonsense

This is another place to use the "nofollow" tag (as used on URLs attached to poster's pseudonyms, to avoid blogspamming). That keeps Google from crediting the link as a recommendation, if I grok it.