More Deep Linking
from the it's-an-epidemic dept
When it rains, it pours, apparently. Now that a few idiotic online publications have started speaking up complaining about deep linking, more seem to be coming out of the woodwork. The latest is Runnersworld.com being upset that someone linked to the “printable” version of one of their articles instead of the full surrounded-by-ads version. Once again, there are pretty simple technology solutions to this. Even worse, someone has apparently noticed that Runnersworld.com themselves have been known to deep link into other sites. I think many of these lawyers are simply looking for extra lawsuits for their clients just so they have something to do these days.
Comments on “More Deep Linking”
Why put them up
I like the printable versions, but if you’re that concerned about it, why not just remove the printable version? Admittedly, you’re pissing off your users, a classic business case these days, but if you have that much of a problem with the linking, solve it yourself instead of filing stupid lawsuits.
Re: Why put them up
They don’t have to give up printable versions at all. Check the HTTP_REFERER on the printable link and if it’s not from the ad-laden page, redirect to the non-printable link.
Or make the printable page require registration (like the nytimes). You could even make the printable page available via paid subscription-only.
I Wondered When This Would Hit the Fan
Not deep linking – that’s old defecation through the ventilation – but linking to the print version.
When I’m reading a multi-page article and it looks as if I’m going to go the duration, I’ll usually click on the “one-page” version – fewer clicks, fewer ads, less wait. (And here in The Town That Time Forgot, dial-up speed with a tailwind is a screaming 26,4.) But when I’m “stealing” a link for my own site, I always point to the “screen” version – it just seems like the right thing to do.