Do people bother to check if the hyperlink matches the url?
April 6, 2023 12:17 PM Subscribe
This is a question (of mine) I reworded by the way.
I want to know if people routinely hover over hyperlinks in articles etc., (let's say the word "here") and look at url at the bottom left of the screen, to verify that it's not some upto not good person trying to get people to click on an upto no good place. I always check.
But not everyone knows to do that. Do people bother to check if the hyperlink matches the url? I'm thinking not everyone does , so I post the url if it is short or not overly long. And I use tiny url if it is too long.
But not everyone knows to do that. Do people bother to check if the hyperlink matches the url? I'm thinking not everyone does , so I post the url if it is short or not overly long. And I use tiny url if it is too long.
I do, always. But I am an early adopter, former programmer, likely atypical.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:28 PM on April 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:28 PM on April 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
Best answer: On desktop, I sometimes look to see if the hyperlink is going to a video site, because I basically never want to watch a video but I don't routinely check that a link is going to where it says it is going.
On mobile, it is too much hassle, so I don't ever check.
In email, I will basically never click a link unless it is a routine email that I know I signed up for or a link from a friend that I already knew was coming because they said 'Hey, I'll send you a link to the thing' and then sent it.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:29 PM on April 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
On mobile, it is too much hassle, so I don't ever check.
In email, I will basically never click a link unless it is a routine email that I know I signed up for or a link from a friend that I already knew was coming because they said 'Hey, I'll send you a link to the thing' and then sent it.
posted by jacquilynne at 12:29 PM on April 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Best answer: On desktop I always check links before clicking on them. On mobile I never do but I'm much less adventurous about visiting sites on mobile anyway.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:37 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:37 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: These days I tend to assume that my browser and OS have good security, and that merely clicking a link will not harm my computer. So I no longer do the thing of double-checking every single link no matter what.
But when I'm not sure if the link interests me, I'll still hover to check, if only to save myself clicks on the Back button. On Wikipedia before previews, it was "Huh, I wonder what article that goes to." Here, it's often "Huh, I wonder if that goes to a newspaper or a blog or what."
posted by nebulawindphone at 12:39 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
But when I'm not sure if the link interests me, I'll still hover to check, if only to save myself clicks on the Back button. On Wikipedia before previews, it was "Huh, I wonder what article that goes to." Here, it's often "Huh, I wonder if that goes to a newspaper or a blog or what."
posted by nebulawindphone at 12:39 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: As a UX designer the answer to "do users in general think ahead and look before they leap [click]" the answer is no.
If you have more specific details about the context, or if you're asking about a particularly techy crowd, my answer might be different.
Personally I only occasionally check before I click, and usually only when I'm worried something suspicious might be going on (ie if I'm worried something is a phishing email or if I'm on a spammy site).
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:46 PM on April 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
If you have more specific details about the context, or if you're asking about a particularly techy crowd, my answer might be different.
Personally I only occasionally check before I click, and usually only when I'm worried something suspicious might be going on (ie if I'm worried something is a phishing email or if I'm on a spammy site).
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:46 PM on April 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
Best answer: HAHAHA my company routinely sends out training and tests to make sure we do this. So on my work computer, I do. On my personal computer or phone, not always. I don't spend a lot of my time on the open web, to be honest, so a lot of the links I click are things like the Metafilter "more inside", where they're automatically generated, and I know what's going to happen.
posted by kevinbelt at 12:48 PM on April 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by kevinbelt at 12:48 PM on April 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
Best answer: (Yeah, so, ok, having given my answer, here's a meta-answer: don't listen to mefites' self-reports, listen to the UX designer's experience with the general population. People on this site are way more Old Internet, way more tech literate, and way more likely to have been through a white collar anti-phishing training than average.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 12:51 PM on April 6, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by nebulawindphone at 12:51 PM on April 6, 2023 [14 favorites]
Best answer: This got way less useful in the age of link shorteners and mobile internet, I don't think I've consciously checked this in years.
It's also trivially spoofable with JavaScript (make a real link to google.com, when the user mouses over they see that it's a link to google.com, catch the click event and send the user to evil.com on click). So outside of locked down environments such as emails that don't evaluate untrusted JavaScript it doesn't do you much good.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:01 PM on April 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's also trivially spoofable with JavaScript (make a real link to google.com, when the user mouses over they see that it's a link to google.com, catch the click event and send the user to evil.com on click). So outside of locked down environments such as emails that don't evaluate untrusted JavaScript it doesn't do you much good.
posted by BungaDunga at 1:01 PM on April 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
Best answer: Almost always. Not just for security but also out of curiosity to see where I'm being linked to, do I even want to go there, what sort of sources is this article linking to, is this going to be a PDF or a video, is the author of this article using url shorteners in which case I judge their judgment, etc. Same on mobile. It's a quick way to find out things without going to the bother of actually opening the link.
And I use tiny url if it is too long.
If you're on some platform or medium where character count matters, that's one thing. But if you're writing out a url specifically so people can see where you're linking to without hovering, using a shortener like tinyurl defeats the purpose. Shortened links are basically mystery meat.
I try not to follow shortened links unless they're proprietary to some site I know (e.g. amazon) or unless I trust the sender and the message.
posted by trig at 1:12 PM on April 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
And I use tiny url if it is too long.
If you're on some platform or medium where character count matters, that's one thing. But if you're writing out a url specifically so people can see where you're linking to without hovering, using a shortener like tinyurl defeats the purpose. Shortened links are basically mystery meat.
I try not to follow shortened links unless they're proprietary to some site I know (e.g. amazon) or unless I trust the sender and the message.
posted by trig at 1:12 PM on April 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I do on desktop but not on mobile (because it takes longer) unless the source is sending up other red flags. I do it just as much to avoid wasting time going to a site I don't want (video, paywalled, etc.) as for security.
posted by metasarah at 1:32 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by metasarah at 1:32 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I click away with gay abandon. The only time I look at URLs is if it's a page that involves secure information.
The string of a URL is just not enough information to be useful on a regular basis.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:33 PM on April 6, 2023
The string of a URL is just not enough information to be useful on a regular basis.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:33 PM on April 6, 2023
Best answer: Same here. The only time I hover and read the URL is in the green, since I have title-size set to zero, and you've only said something in your question about "what it says on the tin".
(And why have I turned off titles? Because MetaFilter was broken, ten years ago, an update some of us still reject.)
posted by Rash at 1:53 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
(And why have I turned off titles? Because MetaFilter was broken, ten years ago, an update some of us still reject.)
posted by Rash at 1:53 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I don't check link destinations religiously and I don't know a good way to check a link destination on a mobile site (my usual go to is 'copy link'). Also, links are, at least occasionally, 'javascript:void(0)', indicating 'you will go where my scripts feel like sending you, but no clues where'.
I think the trust is in the author of the page you're reading and their maintenance of the site, not the link destination. For instance, if I am reading a newspaper I don't expect to be rickrolled. Conversely, if I were going to rickroll someone then I could do 101 things with onclick or onhover, certainly with JavaScript and perhaps even with CSS, to mess with where you actually go when you click versus where the tooltip/status bar says you are going. But I can only do that if I have control over page content. Hence the questions 'do I trust the author' and 'do I trust this site not to have been changed by someone else'.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 2:14 PM on April 6, 2023
I think the trust is in the author of the page you're reading and their maintenance of the site, not the link destination. For instance, if I am reading a newspaper I don't expect to be rickrolled. Conversely, if I were going to rickroll someone then I could do 101 things with onclick or onhover, certainly with JavaScript and perhaps even with CSS, to mess with where you actually go when you click versus where the tooltip/status bar says you are going. But I can only do that if I have control over page content. Hence the questions 'do I trust the author' and 'do I trust this site not to have been changed by someone else'.
posted by How much is that froggie in the window at 2:14 PM on April 6, 2023
Best answer: I always check on my laptop, but I actually don’t know how to on my phone.
Note that MetaFilter is an EXTREMELY web-savvy and high-literacy segment of the population, so I bet people here check at like three or four times the rate of the general population.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 3:11 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Note that MetaFilter is an EXTREMELY web-savvy and high-literacy segment of the population, so I bet people here check at like three or four times the rate of the general population.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 3:11 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: It depends who provided that link.
Metafilter post that's been up for a day? Probably trustworthy.
Unsolicited mail? Gonna get decently inspected, and even so I'll be opening it up in a separate browser that doesn't have any history or other cookies on it.
And echoing other people, the modern internet means that a lot of links will be obfuscated for both nefarious and non-nefarious reasons. The link might go an affiliate marketing tracker. It also might go to URL shortener. It might go to a domain that is actually owned by the company in question but it's inexplicably named something completely different. And it also might look totally fine but it's using some weird non-English characters to masquerade as the real thing.
I believe that link shorteners are now frowned upon because they both hide the real web site, and they depend on the link shortener company staying in business.
posted by meowzilla at 3:19 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Metafilter post that's been up for a day? Probably trustworthy.
Unsolicited mail? Gonna get decently inspected, and even so I'll be opening it up in a separate browser that doesn't have any history or other cookies on it.
And echoing other people, the modern internet means that a lot of links will be obfuscated for both nefarious and non-nefarious reasons. The link might go an affiliate marketing tracker. It also might go to URL shortener. It might go to a domain that is actually owned by the company in question but it's inexplicably named something completely different. And it also might look totally fine but it's using some weird non-English characters to masquerade as the real thing.
I believe that link shorteners are now frowned upon because they both hide the real web site, and they depend on the link shortener company staying in business.
posted by meowzilla at 3:19 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The answer is "obviously not", otherwise the URL scamming you refer to you in your own question would not be a thing.
posted by some little punk in a rocket at 4:05 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by some little punk in a rocket at 4:05 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I always check on my laptop, but I actually don’t know how to on my phone.
On Android, usually if you do a long tap on a link you'll get a context menu that shows at least the beginning of the url. With Firefox for Android, if the url in the context menu gets truncated you can tap on it to expand.
The string of a URL is just not enough information to be useful on a regular basis.
I think most people don't pay attention to urls in general even in the address bar, or know how to understand them. But for me, they're often full of useful information, and not just in terms of things like the domain, possible subdomain, site navigation, etc. For one example, news article urls often have the date and a version of the headline, so even without clicking on the link I get an idea of whether I actually want or need to read it. (This is especially useful with sites like the NYT that like to change their headlines constantly, often obscuring the actual content with uninformative clickbait titles like "A New Idea is Under Attack"; the url will usually be something like .../critical-race-theory-florida.html, so I can immediately tell whether this is something new to me or whether I've probably already heard about this. Right now one headline there is "If It’s Advertised to You Online, You Probably Shouldn’t Buy It. Here’s Why." Looking at the url, I see .../online-advertising-privacy-data-surveillance-consumer-quality.html, which answers the "why" for me instantly, and I can decide based on that if I want or need more details. "Young Americans May Get the Rare Chance to Read This Story the Way It Was Meant to Be Read"? The url tells me this is about Christianity and Easter.) And so on.
posted by trig at 4:41 PM on April 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
On Android, usually if you do a long tap on a link you'll get a context menu that shows at least the beginning of the url. With Firefox for Android, if the url in the context menu gets truncated you can tap on it to expand.
The string of a URL is just not enough information to be useful on a regular basis.
I think most people don't pay attention to urls in general even in the address bar, or know how to understand them. But for me, they're often full of useful information, and not just in terms of things like the domain, possible subdomain, site navigation, etc. For one example, news article urls often have the date and a version of the headline, so even without clicking on the link I get an idea of whether I actually want or need to read it. (This is especially useful with sites like the NYT that like to change their headlines constantly, often obscuring the actual content with uninformative clickbait titles like "A New Idea is Under Attack"; the url will usually be something like .../critical-race-theory-florida.html, so I can immediately tell whether this is something new to me or whether I've probably already heard about this. Right now one headline there is "If It’s Advertised to You Online, You Probably Shouldn’t Buy It. Here’s Why." Looking at the url, I see .../online-advertising-privacy-data-surveillance-consumer-quality.html, which answers the "why" for me instantly, and I can decide based on that if I want or need more details. "Young Americans May Get the Rare Chance to Read This Story the Way It Was Meant to Be Read"? The url tells me this is about Christianity and Easter.) And so on.
posted by trig at 4:41 PM on April 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I always check unless I'm triply sure of the link (site, poster, context).
But in large part, even on such a lovely site as Metafilter, to avoid even touching or scraping against Meta (FB, IG, etc) pages. Most of you want video or NYT warnings, I want social media warnings.
Oh and I will almost never click on a tiny url/url shortener.
posted by mephisjo at 4:51 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
But in large part, even on such a lovely site as Metafilter, to avoid even touching or scraping against Meta (FB, IG, etc) pages. Most of you want video or NYT warnings, I want social media warnings.
Oh and I will almost never click on a tiny url/url shortener.
posted by mephisjo at 4:51 PM on April 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Always.
As noted above, they can impart generally useful information beyond where you're going. If need be will c/p the url into a text editor to remove tracking cruft. I don't allow background preloading but will use a URL expander to see the real target of shortened URLs. Forbid redirects and have strict adblockers, javascript off by default, in the interest of defeating referers. If I feel iffy about it, I'll view the site via a proxy. (Will probably just scroll past mystery meat, tho.) Still feel I'm a bit loose about things tbh: have had to occasionally close out quickly, which is already too late.
Prob your typical level of end user caution ;)
posted by to wound the autumnal city at 5:26 PM on April 6, 2023
As noted above, they can impart generally useful information beyond where you're going. If need be will c/p the url into a text editor to remove tracking cruft. I don't allow background preloading but will use a URL expander to see the real target of shortened URLs. Forbid redirects and have strict adblockers, javascript off by default, in the interest of defeating referers. If I feel iffy about it, I'll view the site via a proxy. (Will probably just scroll past mystery meat, tho.) Still feel I'm a bit loose about things tbh: have had to occasionally close out quickly, which is already too late.
Prob your typical level of end user caution ;)
posted by to wound the autumnal city at 5:26 PM on April 6, 2023
Best answer: Check upwards of 80% of the time on both mobile and desktop as there seem to be lots of places linked I don't want to go (Facebook, NYT, instagram, Forbes, MSN, YouTube (on my phone because of a low data plan), shopping sites).
posted by Mitheral at 6:29 PM on April 6, 2023
posted by Mitheral at 6:29 PM on April 6, 2023
Best answer: I can see my dad having been trained to do this (Decently computer literate, worked in stocks) and possibly my mom, (Decently computer literate and worked with very rich people and their children) but not the rest of my family on a regular basis. I certainly don't almost ever. Just for the stuff that stands out as suspect
posted by Jacen at 10:09 PM on April 6, 2023
posted by Jacen at 10:09 PM on April 6, 2023
Best answer: On desktop, yes, because I don't like surprises, and the more I know about where a click will take me, the better. As a bonus, hovering confirms for me that it's a link and I can middle-click, rather than a button styled like a link (middle-click won't do anything) or a bit of inert text styled like a link (I don't know why people do this).
On mobile, I commonly do a long-press in order to bring up the "open in new tab" dialog, which also conveniently tells me the link URL.
I've been on the web since the days of Netscape Navigator, and flicking my eyes to bottom left before clicking a link is second nature. It's not really out of security fears, though. It's "is this a site I want in my work browser history?" or "is this a link to a paywalled / geoblocked / adblocker-averse site?" or "is this a link to a business I don't want to support?" or "is this a video link?" or "is this a link to a reputable source of information?". I wouldn't expect to be able to pick out a malicious site from its URL, except in the context of spam/phishing emails, where there may be an obvious mismatch between the link's purported destination and the actual URL.
For what it's worth, I try to avoid using URLs as the actual display text of a link myself. That's partly because link-rot means that providing the context of what you're linking to is often going to be more helpful in the medium to long term than just the URL on its own; it's partly because they can be overwhelmingly long; and it's also for general accessibility reasons, as described in this WebAIM article on link accessibility. But I hadn't really appreciated that I'm in a minority for hovering on links before I click! It's been interesting reading the answers to the question.
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 3:47 AM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
On mobile, I commonly do a long-press in order to bring up the "open in new tab" dialog, which also conveniently tells me the link URL.
I've been on the web since the days of Netscape Navigator, and flicking my eyes to bottom left before clicking a link is second nature. It's not really out of security fears, though. It's "is this a site I want in my work browser history?" or "is this a link to a paywalled / geoblocked / adblocker-averse site?" or "is this a link to a business I don't want to support?" or "is this a video link?" or "is this a link to a reputable source of information?". I wouldn't expect to be able to pick out a malicious site from its URL, except in the context of spam/phishing emails, where there may be an obvious mismatch between the link's purported destination and the actual URL.
For what it's worth, I try to avoid using URLs as the actual display text of a link myself. That's partly because link-rot means that providing the context of what you're linking to is often going to be more helpful in the medium to long term than just the URL on its own; it's partly because they can be overwhelmingly long; and it's also for general accessibility reasons, as described in this WebAIM article on link accessibility. But I hadn't really appreciated that I'm in a minority for hovering on links before I click! It's been interesting reading the answers to the question.
posted by ManyLeggedCreature at 3:47 AM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Best answer: This post (have you read it already? Can you tell without opening it?) made me think of this question. There are a bunch of archive.is links, so I have no idea what source they're from and I'm not likely to click them. Hovering over the other links as I read, I know where they're from, what kind of content to expect (538 articles, twitter/mastodon links, a direct link to government legislation, previous metafilter posts, etc.), and whether I think it's worth my time to open them. I can tell the url linked in the first comment is to a relatively recent (2018) Penny Arcade comic, which makes me expect it'll have content about today's context and not the context of, say, 20 years ago. The fourth comment (last one there as of posting) links to a blog post on something called "fiscalnote.com", which I've never heard of, and then I wonder whether I should have heard of it or not - looking at urls makes me pay attention to the names and reputations of information sources.
Being used to doing this automatically, the idea of opening all these links blind seems odd and time-intensive.
posted by trig at 5:16 AM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
Being used to doing this automatically, the idea of opening all these links blind seems odd and time-intensive.
posted by trig at 5:16 AM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I often do, depending on the source of a link, and dislike url-shorteners because I have no idea where they go.
posted by theora55 at 6:47 AM on April 7, 2023
posted by theora55 at 6:47 AM on April 7, 2023
Best answer: Safari on Mac doesn't, by default, even have a status bar - where the URL would appear when you hover over the link. You have to enable it via a menu, which most people won't do.
posted by fabius at 8:44 AM on April 7, 2023
posted by fabius at 8:44 AM on April 7, 2023
Best answer: Like nebulawindphone I mostly do this to make sure I’m not wasting my time. I do it secondarily to avoid wasting free articles on NYT and the Guardian.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:54 AM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by aspersioncast at 10:54 AM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thank you all!!
Trig,
To answer your question it looks like an Metafilter question, without opening it.
posted by amfgf at 1:57 PM on April 8, 2023
Trig,
To answer your question it looks like an Metafilter question, without opening it.
posted by amfgf at 1:57 PM on April 8, 2023
Best answer: Almost! Questions on Ask Metafilter start with ask.metafilter.com. That link starts with www.metafilter.com, which means it's a post on the blue (i.e. on the main Metafilter site, versus Ask Metafilter). The url also shows that it's the post whose title is something like "Living to work on reelection", albeit potentially with different punctuation because metafilter strips punctuation from post urls - as you can see from checking the url for this question.
posted by trig at 2:47 PM on April 8, 2023
posted by trig at 2:47 PM on April 8, 2023
Best answer: By the way, an RTLO attack can play all sorts of havoc with the URL you think you are reading, particularly in replacing the file suffix with something innocuous looking. Be careful out there.
Right To Left Override
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:12 AM on April 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
Right To Left Override
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:12 AM on April 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Trig,
So, what should we do from now on?
posted by amfgf at 5:51 PM on April 14, 2023
So, what should we do from now on?
posted by amfgf at 5:51 PM on April 14, 2023
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by dobbs at 12:24 PM on April 6, 2023 [9 favorites]