Hyperlinking Articles to Create Knowledge-bases

This article was written by the author of:


A Guide to Hyperlinking in Articles


A hyperlink is simply a string (e.g., a word) or an image that when clicked on links to a different page or another section of that same page. For example, Baldur's Gate (a hyperlinked string) leads to an index of coverage on that computer game.

For argument's sake, you are an independent computer game commentator.

Let's be specific.

You have posted (for example) 100 articles on one computer game.

You have written a multi-part retrospective, a walkthrough, several opinion-pieces and dozens of guides on one specific game.

And since each article relates to the others and refers to the others, your articles contain hyperlinks that join all articles together to form a knowledge-base.

"How dare you, an independent commentator, link one of your articles to other articles of yours? Don't you know that only SEO-driven fan-wikis and Wikipedia are allowed to deepen and expand their commentary via hyperlinks? How dare you seek to be read beyond one article!"

At least, that seems to be what some folk think. Because they never criticize link-stuffed wikis, only the independents. When it comes to computer game commentary, it is like they only want fan-wikis and reddit RPG Games to exist in 2024 and beyond. [1]

But I just want to say this:

If, when writing Article B, you have covered Subject A that Article B refers to, you should link to subject A's article (Article A) in Article B. And Article A should link back to Article B when Article B's subject is referred to.

Expand on that through 100 articles and the result is a tightly-woven tapestry of hyperlinked articles that constitute a useful knowledge-base. And if you are a concise formal writer you are going to refer to subjects often. And the link between one thing and another is going to occur to you often due to your erudition on the subject.

Now of course, indexes aside, one should not hyperlink every second string as link-stuffing is unsightly, distracting and can adversely affect reader experience.

But hyperlinked articles benefit readers by deepening the commentary from the broad to the specific or from the simple to the complex (and vice versa): a gradation of coverage.

It is not just about going from the universal to the particular and vice versa: you can also expand into the seemingly unrelated, showing the connection between two or more things.

Here is an example of a hyperlinked article opener:

The Fighter Build is a ToEE Build for Troika's cRPG of 2003, Temple of Elemental Evil.

In the opening line of the article, the subject is established and the build index, the game index and the genre definition are given along with the name of the game, name of the developer and the game's release year.

And note the degrees of coverage linked to:

  • genre
  • game
  • builds
  • specific build

And from there we link to weapons, spells and mechanics: the nitty-gritty.

Simple. There is nothing to criticize here.

[1]

One of the biggest hyperlink-stuffers in internet history is Wikipedia, whose articles are never criticized.

A supreme example of odious link-stuffing is furnished by my criticism of Wikipedia's 1990s in Video Games Article.

Afterword


Note also that most fan-wikis are not ads-free like my site has been for 10 years. Next time you are browsing a fan-wiki that purports to be dedicated to a classic game, have fun getting new games shoved into your face. And even non-game content. Because who doesn't want to know about the latest X-Men movie while they are learning about classic 1980s shoot 'em ups?

There is also a correlation between subredditors and fan-wikis: since many of them are control-freaks and no-lifers, subreddit moderators often start up the fan-wikis for their subreddit communities to contribute to, the links to which they spam like mad when any question is asked by some blow-in subredditor.

So when independent commentary external to reddit-wikis competes with their rabble-effort by virtue of superior literacy and consistency, they criticize that commentary, but only when such commentary can no longer be outright ignored because it has rightly become famous, unlike their generic mish-mash that was scribbled out by a slaving horde of barely-literate lost souls.

Labels: , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)