Etiquiette for deep linking?
October 17, 2007 12:32 PM Subscribe
What is (if it exists) the etiquette for 'deep linking' to other sites?
We're a nonprofit organization and we link to news stories about ourselves from our media page.
We received an email from one of these organizations calling it "unauthorized deeplinking" and to talk to so and so about using the content. But it's not a pay for site, so what gives? It's the internet, it's fair game, right?
What can we diplomatically say to these people to tell them to bug off, assuming we're not violating any rules we didn't know about?
We're a nonprofit organization and we link to news stories about ourselves from our media page.
We received an email from one of these organizations calling it "unauthorized deeplinking" and to talk to so and so about using the content. But it's not a pay for site, so what gives? It's the internet, it's fair game, right?
What can we diplomatically say to these people to tell them to bug off, assuming we're not violating any rules we didn't know about?
I completey agree with macdara, that it is completey out-of-date to insist on linking to only the homepage.
Maybe a solution could be to link to the page you want, and then next to it have a link to their homepage as well?
A bit of diplomacy can go a long way.
posted by chrispy108 at 12:54 PM on October 17, 2007
Maybe a solution could be to link to the page you want, and then next to it have a link to their homepage as well?
A bit of diplomacy can go a long way.
posted by chrispy108 at 12:54 PM on October 17, 2007
If you're just linking to the page and not a specific image or media file, it's fine.
posted by drezdn at 12:55 PM on October 17, 2007
posted by drezdn at 12:55 PM on October 17, 2007
If they want to stop deep linking it's trivially easy to so do. All they have to do is redirect all incoming hits to the home page. The fact that they are complaining, apparently without being up on this 1997 technology, would seem to indicate that you are dealing with a particularly clueless organization.
I'd ignore them. IANAL and all other normal disclaimers apply.
posted by COD at 12:57 PM on October 17, 2007
I'd ignore them. IANAL and all other normal disclaimers apply.
posted by COD at 12:57 PM on October 17, 2007
According to the ever-authoritative Wikipedia, U.S. case law says deep linking is perfectly legal.
posted by jjg at 12:58 PM on October 17, 2007
posted by jjg at 12:58 PM on October 17, 2007
There's also the issue to consider of changed addresses. Sometimes it's better to link to their homepage or a news page, since those pages are least likely to change addresses in the next year.
But that's just a pragmatic concern. I'd say 'deep linking' is fine.
I wonder what they think about search engines linking to pages other than their homepage?
One thing you might do to slightly appease them is, "Here's a news story about us [link to story] that was wrote by X Inc. [homepage link]."
posted by philomathoholic at 1:05 PM on October 17, 2007
But that's just a pragmatic concern. I'd say 'deep linking' is fine.
I wonder what they think about search engines linking to pages other than their homepage?
One thing you might do to slightly appease them is, "Here's a news story about us [link to story] that was wrote by X Inc. [homepage link]."
posted by philomathoholic at 1:05 PM on October 17, 2007
To avoid ever-changing addresses there's always linking to a search page within the main site. It's not a direct link to what you're looking for, but it's better than "Go to BobsSexyCostumes.com and try to find the page with the picture of the construction worker". I still think the deep link the OP is talking about is perfectly fine, though. Just keep an eye out in case they replace the page with porn to spite you.
posted by monkeymadness at 1:09 PM on October 17, 2007
posted by monkeymadness at 1:09 PM on October 17, 2007
They're clueless. Ignore them, and if they persist, direct them to the relevant caselaw.
I wouldn't point out that they could trivially reconfigure their web server to prohibit deeplinking, just because I think there's no reason to enlighten an ignorant person to your own disadvantage, particularly when they're being a douchebag about it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:16 PM on October 17, 2007
I wouldn't point out that they could trivially reconfigure their web server to prohibit deeplinking, just because I think there's no reason to enlighten an ignorant person to your own disadvantage, particularly when they're being a douchebag about it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:16 PM on October 17, 2007
If you can link to it link to it. If they don't want people to link to their content, they can stop people from doing so on their end.
posted by chunking express at 1:17 PM on October 17, 2007
posted by chunking express at 1:17 PM on October 17, 2007
About as diplomatic as you can be is to simply not respond.
If they continue to pester, simply say that you've considered their request and decided to continue on as is.
posted by toomuchpete at 1:20 PM on October 17, 2007
If they continue to pester, simply say that you've considered their request and decided to continue on as is.
posted by toomuchpete at 1:20 PM on October 17, 2007
I'm reminded of last year's big story on this subject, Big Stink Over a Simple Link. The response isn't as amusing as I would've hoped for, but illustrates the sort of reply (if any) that might be appropriate:
"i'm not quite sure how a policy on your part translates into action being required on mine. My own organisation's web link policy requires no such formal agreement. The free associative nature of hyperlinking has always been and remains the central characteristic of the world wide web..." blah, blah, blah.
Personally, I'd go with something shorter, like "This is the web. You will be linked to. Resistance is futile."
posted by sfenders at 1:37 PM on October 17, 2007
"i'm not quite sure how a policy on your part translates into action being required on mine. My own organisation's web link policy requires no such formal agreement. The free associative nature of hyperlinking has always been and remains the central characteristic of the world wide web..." blah, blah, blah.
Personally, I'd go with something shorter, like "This is the web. You will be linked to. Resistance is futile."
posted by sfenders at 1:37 PM on October 17, 2007
Response by poster: Thanks all, this is pretty much what I thought but wanted to cover my bases before I started spouting off about it to the boss.
I am now confident in my right to bitch and moan about how stupid these folks are. Thanks!
posted by unsigned at 2:06 PM on October 17, 2007
I am now confident in my right to bitch and moan about how stupid these folks are. Thanks!
posted by unsigned at 2:06 PM on October 17, 2007
Response by poster: And yes, I am amused by boingboing's policy - didn't realize that about NPR, that makes me sad.
posted by unsigned at 2:08 PM on October 17, 2007
posted by unsigned at 2:08 PM on October 17, 2007
Bewary of intentionally ignoring a request to stop deep-linking; regardless of the legality of your position, it's all too easy for them to alter the URL to the real page, and all their own references to it, then replace your deep-linked page with smut, a nastygram, whatever.
Before you go hogwild on ignoring them, maybe stop and find out if their reasons are fiscal or philosophical. If the page you link to was 'meant' to be surrounded by frames with ads in them, they'll see you as siphoning money from them. They don't need your link, you appearently need their content. Yes, they should have a better design, but maybe you could be nice about it and give them helpful suggestions, instead of just insulting them for being ignorant. Not everyone is a web developer.
posted by nomisxid at 4:22 PM on October 17, 2007
Before you go hogwild on ignoring them, maybe stop and find out if their reasons are fiscal or philosophical. If the page you link to was 'meant' to be surrounded by frames with ads in them, they'll see you as siphoning money from them. They don't need your link, you appearently need their content. Yes, they should have a better design, but maybe you could be nice about it and give them helpful suggestions, instead of just insulting them for being ignorant. Not everyone is a web developer.
posted by nomisxid at 4:22 PM on October 17, 2007
Ask them what percentage of their ad revenue they'll give you for sending traffic to their site.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:13 PM on October 17, 2007
posted by kirkaracha at 5:13 PM on October 17, 2007
BoingBoing's linking policy says that sites that have a linking policy can't link to BoingBoing but BoingBoing's linking policy has links to BoingBoing so BoingBoing's linking policy breaks itself.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:17 PM on October 17, 2007
posted by kirkaracha at 5:17 PM on October 17, 2007
Out of interest, would you care to share the "dinosaur" web site that forbids incessant "linking" and "traffic" ? Or are we not allowed to mention their name either, lest their servers crumble and they lose thousands in revenue?
I second the comments against ignoring them. They may do something annoying. They don't have a legal basis for it, and they are apparently living in a timewarp and ignorant of the ability to script to the homepage.
I suggest you contact them, and respectively say that their views are outdated, there is no legal basis for their complaint, and you find the use of legal threats needlessly rude. If they explain their reasons, you will happily remove the link, but consider that they should be thankful for the traffic. Be polite but assertive.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 4:57 AM on October 18, 2007
I second the comments against ignoring them. They may do something annoying. They don't have a legal basis for it, and they are apparently living in a timewarp and ignorant of the ability to script to the homepage.
I suggest you contact them, and respectively say that their views are outdated, there is no legal basis for their complaint, and you find the use of legal threats needlessly rude. If they explain their reasons, you will happily remove the link, but consider that they should be thankful for the traffic. Be polite but assertive.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 4:57 AM on October 18, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
This 'unauthorised deeplinking' thing is ridiculous in this day, and stems from the dinosaur age of the internet where organisations who set up websites assumed that the site was their own personal fiefdom on the web, and they had the right to direct all visitors through only the channels and pathways they deemed fit (ie everyone has to go through the homepage -- no skipping the homepage! How dare you skip our homepage!!)
The thing is, while websites themselves are designed in a multilateral hierarchy, effectively the web is a unilateral space. And if you put things online that are freely available, you have no business complaining if others link to that freely available material (hotlinking, of course, is a different issue.)
posted by macdara at 12:43 PM on October 17, 2007 [1 favorite]