Tim O’Reilly is tearing his hair out because he thinks that we link too much to CrunchBase, our startup database. He levels the unforgivable charge of self-linking at us, and puts us in the same company as the New York Times (which in this case is not a good thing). In his post (which I link to above), he makes the following connection between how we link to Crunchbase and how the New York Times constantly links to itself:
Now, rather than linking directly to companies covered in its stories, Techcrunch links to one of its own properties to provide additional information about them. I noticed the same behavior the other day on the New York Times, when I followed a link, and was taken to a search result for articles on the subject at the Times (with lots of ads, even if there were few results).
Tim is simply confused here. We’re not nearly as bad as the New York Times, which I agree generally does a really poor job of linking to any authority other than itself. (But it depends where you look. Some of its blogs are linking out more and more. Maybe the rest of the paper will take notice). Moreover, company links on TechCrunch are usually not the most prominent link in any given post. Most posts include other outbound links to other blogs, news articles, press releases, and the like.
As far as CrunchBase is concerned, we have no hard and fast rules for linking to company profiles there. Sometimes we link to the CrunchBase profile, sometimes we link directly to the company’s site. More often than not, we do both. Sometimes we’re lazy or pressed for time, and only link to one or (gasp) none at all. But my preferred method, for instance, is to link the company logo in a post to the CrunchBase profile and link the first mention of the company in a post to its Website.
Am I ruining the Web by doing that? I thought more information was better. Yet O’Reilly warns ominously about self-linking:
When this trend spreads (and I say “when”, not “if”), this will be a tax on the utility of the web that must be counterbalanced by the utility of the intervening pages. If they are really good, with lots of useful, curated data that you wouldn’t easily find elsewhere, this may be an acceptable tax. In fact, they may even be beneficial, and a real way to increase the value of the site to its readers.
To be fair, O’Reilly does give kudos to CrunchBase itself for linking out to other sources. And he is correct that we do try to link to CrunchBase as much as possible. But that is because we think it’s a really good resource, a place where readers can get up to speed on a company at a glance. Each company profile has a succinct description of what it does, how much money it’s raised, who are its founders and investors, who are its competitors, as well as recent posts about the company from all over the Web.
Oh yeah, and its free. There’s plenty of M&A and acquisition data in there that we are not trying to charge for. In fact, anyone can take the data in CrunchBase and repurpose it on their own Websites through the CrunchBase API.
O’Reilly ends with a suggested rule of thumb for self-linking:
Ensure that the pages you create at those destinations are truly more valuable to your readers than any other external link you might provide.
Again, I couldn’t agree with him more. And CrunchBase more than passes that test. But don’t take my word for it. Do a Google search for some of your favorite Web startups, and more often than not you will find a CrunchBase profile on the first page of results. And it’s not just little-known startups either. try searching for Twitter or Friendfeed, and you’ll see the same thing. We do have some Google juice at TechCrunch, but even we couldn’t do that on our own.
Update: Tom O’Reilly responds in comments:
Just to be clear, I like crunchbase. I think it’s a great idea. However, I’d like links to crunchbase to be marked as such. You might try using Apture to provide that visibility (as well as other cross-linking capabilities.)
Mostly, though, I was trying to point out a trend, and sensitize people to it, so that it doesn’t creep up on them. We’re all like frogs in slowly warming water. Eventually it boils. But often, we don’t notice things that we should until too late.
(Image by Dan4th Nicholas).
Sometimes it is frustrating to click on a company url and go to CrunchBase, perhaps CrunchBase links can be somehow identified. I am sure someone can come up with a nice-looking CB icon.
p.s. you should have linked to tim’s Crunch Base profile
I agree with Tim, a lot of times I’d like to visit the companies your write about on TC, only to be taken to CrunchBase.
Not everyone cares about CrunchBase and tons of information about a given company - we just want to go to their page.
I agree with Tim as well. I think you should link directly to the company, you have the relevant CrunchBase info and linkage at the bottom of the post anyway.
It really is a disturbing practice, not so much on TC but for instance Weblogs Inc, Gawker Media and any ‘mainstream’ blog. They post an article (term used loosely) on any given topic and will link to even the most trivial of their own posts before they will put a relevant outbound link. The one or two outbound links are likely to be only a very discrete mention of who’s story they’re summarising at the bottom of the article.
It’s an anti-user behaviour overall. If you want to keep people on your site racking up ad impressions then provide better quality. Deliberately limiting exit points is just stupid and our experience has been sold for what? An extra 4 or 5 ad impressions while we look for more information before heading off to Google to find it ourselves?
The same anti-user trickery means we get to read articles on other sites that are spaced out over 10 pages, view photo albums that contain just one photo per page and more.
And what value do the additional ad impressions carry anyway? If I didn’t click an ad on page 1 why would I click it on page 2 when I’m obviously committed to looking at the content? If I decided to find more information about [topic] then why would I click an ad after you (not TC) fail to provide value on the worthless blog post you linked in liue of the company/product/wikipedia/everything else?
It looks pointless from every angle, but maybe I’m missing something?
Kind of agree here as well. At least it’d be nice if the linking were consistent. I find myself frequently mousing over a link and checking my status bar before clicking to ensure I’m going to the actual site. When it doesn’t, I have to hunt over every linked word to find the one for the actual site. Kind of annoying. How about a little micro-Crunchbase widget at the top of every post you do with a clearly labeled link to the site you’re blogging about?
Much agreed. I’d be fine if you more clearly designated the CrunchBase articles, but it’s so foolish to get linked to CrunchBase and then AGAIN to have to find the appropriate link. And to try and say that the link to the company’s site is not the prominent link? Well, that’s just plain disingenuous.
Not sure how you got stuck covering Michael’s ass on this one, Erick, but I say give it up — we all see the tactic for what it’s worth. Just own up to it and fix the problem.
who drew that picture?
Someone must’ve made that in paint or something HAHA.
When was the last time this guy visited TechCrunch? I read TechCrunch daily, and 98% of the time there both links to CruchBase and the company website. Almost always the first link in a start up review post is the company name and a link to their home page.
nice hat
Hahahaha
I couldn’t agree with him more!
It’s so annoying that you guys are linking to crunchbase! The Crunchbase module in the bottom of the page is more than enough if i’m interesting in getting the company’s profile.
Simple user-experience question: What do you think users *want* to get when they are clicking on a company name link??
let me help you with the answer is case you’re not sure: in 95% of the cases - your user wants to visit the company’s website and not read who are the founders or some old news about it (which are usually mentioned in the article anyway if they are relevant)
I love techcrunch, and i’ve been reading it from the innocent days when you linked to the actual websites. The crunchbase linking was a serious downgrade. it would be great if you’ll revert that decision.
and BTW, the fact that it’s not consistent (sometimes you’re linking to the actual website) - just makes it worse.
CrunchBase section is given only at the end of article for interested people.
You always have an option to click company names with external links in the main text body (green link with speech bubble) that lands on company sites.
Why complicate things? Do they expect user to search for the “Speach Bubble” or to know the difference? What if tomorrow they remove the snap integration?
Moreover - the simplest and most intuitive way (that used to work in the good old days) was to click on the logo. there is no speech bubble there and most of the time it is linking to crunchbase. When I finish reading an article, and i decide to pay that company a visit, it’s easier to click on the logo than scanning the text in the article looking for that link to the company’s website.
Maybe you didn’t read above, but Erick specifically said,
“But my preferred method, for instance, is to link the company logo in a post to the CrunchBase profile and the first mention of the company in a post to its Website.”
You say, “CrunchBase section is given only at the end ”
Wrong Wrong Wrong
> “the simplest and most intuitive way was to click on the logo.”
I completely agree.
Which is why I had written a greasemonkey script to link company logos directly to the site (using the Crunchbase API).
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/31546
i like linking
keep it up
screw tim oreily
its good to see who is funding the companies mention in the article and reading their bios
There is no repository like CruchBase where I can find all VC/financial firms, check their profiles, their invetment in companies at various funding rounds with links to funded company profiles.
I think it happens to be the case that this repository is maintained by TechCrunch, because there is no better resource TechCrunch can refer for quick intor to companies, there traffic, funding rounds, investors and founders. Tim wouldn’t have had any issues if this repository was maintained by someone else.
What are the alternatives ?
Yahoo! does the same thing for company profiles in new articles. It’s annoying and anti-web anywhere it is done, including here on TC.
I have seen this trend in all the big companies having aggressive web presence. But I believe that if it adds value to the surfer, then there is no harm in doing it.
I appreciate the linkt to cbase, when I *know* the link is to cbase. When I don’t, I don’t appreciate it.
It’s like Technorati, where in the search results if you click on a post title you go to a special page on technorati about that postinstead of to the actual post… To go to the actual post you need to go to the smaller text under the title that happens to be a URL.
Having an icon or a different coloured link for cbase or some kind of visual cue, and I’d use it *more*. I’d rather have the choice than to be surprised (I often put “tricked”, but I’m sure this isn’t a sneaky thing so much as an author preference thing).
Agree that technorati behavior is extremely annoying, I’ve mostly stopped using their search because it takes more clicking (or at least more careful clicking) to get to the real article. At least the CrunchBase has some value, the Technorati landing pages is useless.
As for CrunchBase, Eric mentions that there are no hard and fast rules, and that’s what’s most annoying…the inconsistency. 99% of the time I click the link and would prefer it to be for the website TC is trying to tell me about, not the CrunchBase. Linking to the site should be the default behavior inline and the crunchbase links at the bottom of the article are plenty useful if I want more info on the company. You could also consider a crunchbase adornment next to the link (like those annoying snapshots)
While I’m ranting about TC behaviors, let me also throw in my vote to improve the load time. Those late-loading ads cause my browser layout to change and lose its place when I’m trying to read the article while the page is loading.
I agree with the Author. Linking to CB is so annoying. I normally don’t bother clicking on the link and type the company name into google these days
CrunchBase has its place—at the bottom of each post. Use it as a footnote-type reference tool, and when you make a company name a link, link to the damn company directly. It’s ridiculous to CB link when you’re talking about a specific company or website. Include their CB at the bottom of the post but past that, comon.
I like the links to Crunch Base. If I want to do a deep dive, of course I will go to the website. But, when I want a quick summary, with detailed product and funding info I head to CB.
I have been directing a lot of friends to CB and we like it. Tim is a tool.
Another comment to tell you guys I agree, just in case someone is counting votes. I vote for linking directly to the site, and not crunchbase anymore. The idea of integrating crunchbase info at the bottom of the story is the best idea.
I partially agree, many a time i wanted to go the company URL i get re-directed to crunchbase.
Also, i see now that you have link to the company website, that is kind of good. I do not blame, TC being such a good blog, i don’t mind promoting CB, just that i don’t want to see it everytime.
More over, I don’t think there is any way CruncBase, can have the information realtime. If a companies executive has left ex : Yahoo, you have to modify it manually to reflect the same.
Cheers, Nag
I can’t agree more with Tim. TC is pushings its database in every article with 5 different mostly hidden links to Crunchbase. It makes me click at least 2 more times and provokes a variety of windows with the article, the CB profile and then the website I actually wanted to visit.
Sorry to say that - but Tim is absolutely right, that what you are doing is “pageview-generation” and decreases significantly the user-friendliness.
——-
http://www.speed.io - Internet DSL Speedtest
Not many page views as one might expect.
http://siteanalytics.compete.c.....?metric=uv
TechCrunch at 1.4m and CrucnchBase at 0.4m. CrucnchBase hits include visits from other sites using CrunchBase widget. This means approximately 10-15% of TechCrunch readers visit CrunchBase. If you divide this number based on comments, approx 40% of 15% TechCrunch readers don’t mind going to CrunchBase, which leaves less tthan 10% people having problems with CrunchBase linking.
I think I have nothing better to do right now
Hey nice cartoon there!
c’mon techrunch guys. read the comments and listen to your users. you’re the best advocates for doing exactly that! start making the links, both the article and the logo, to the actual service/company.
make a post admitting you made a mistake and that you’re fixing it.
your readers will love you for it. especially me.
You should definitely link every mention of Tim O’Reilly in this post to CrunchBase.
I love that you guys have links to both the website and crunchbase but I do agree that I think the main header text (for example on this post “Tim O’Reilly”) should link to his website and not the Crunchbase, then have a smaller link or icon that links to the Crunchbase equivalent.
Erick, when you say “But that is because we think it’s a really good resource” and “Oh yeah, and its free” you sound defensive. Otherwise, nice post.
BTW, I also notice you said, “As far as CrunchBase is concerned, we have no hard and fast rules for linking to company profiles there” followed by “we do try to link to CrunchBase as much as possible.” Isn’t that contradictory?
No, just trying to be up front that we do intentionally link to CrunchBase where appropriate, but that we are not particularly consistent about it.
Crunchbase is a unique industry resource that can only be grown through time and hard work. I fail to see why he has a problem with linking to this information-rich resource. That will be $5.00.
I get the self-linking goal– it’s a clear SEO play and worth doing as a business, so long as you don’t confuse your users.
I just glanced at the most recent startup review I could find ( http://www.techcrunch.com/2008.....ws-source/ ) and it looks like clicking the logo goes to Crunchbase, while clicking the name goes to the site. Is this what you’d expect? Nope. It used to be a LOT more painful when you linked EVERYTHING to Crunchbase.
It doesn’t bother me at this point (I’ve learned to be more mindful when clicking links on your site), but there are a dozen ways you could get the SEO juice (the JavaScript widget obviously not being one of them). It doesn’t HAVE to be a choice between SEO goodness and confusing people. Example: At the top of the article have a: “View the Crunchbase profiles of the startups mentioned in this post: CompanyA, CompanyB”. Or, if you want to do it inline, you could say, “….Company A (Homepage | Crunchbase Profile) launched in 2006, garnering widespread blah blah blah…”.
I concur with O’Reilly’s assessment. I’m so used to driven to your other sites that I’ve gotten in the habit of automatically checking the url before clicking on the link.
I’ll add my vote. I read a Techcrunch article for Jitterbit the other day and click on the company logo to see the company’s site ( it is the largest target, thus following Fitts’ Law), since the application looked interesting and I wanted to get more details on it. I hit the CrunchBase link and couldn’t figure out what happened for a minute. Very annoying.
If you have the logo or the company name listed, it should link to their site. If you want to have a CrunchBase link, make it clear in the text or graphic that it links to CrunchBase.
Here’s a simple solution: link like this: “Companyname (Crunchbase)”, where Companyname is linked to the company site, and the “Crunchbase” link goes to the CB profile.
Or “Companyname (Crunchbase profile)”.
Not that hard: a good user experience means the user knows where the link is going. Linking a company name to the CB profile instead of the company site is SEO and kinda spammy, let’s admit it.
Yup.
1. I agree with Tim, and disagree with Erick
2. I think the only time article links should link to crunch base is when you do something like Peter mentioned: “Companyname (Crunchbase profile)”
I haven’t ever really had a problem with it. Even with the CrunchBase profiles, there are external links to appropriate websites. In an article, 9 times out of 10, I can get to the website with no problem or intervening page.
And to be honest here, what would the point of CrunchBase be without any ability to use it to support TechCrunch posts? Besides, there is a huge difference between linking to a profile page with actual additional information vs. linking to a generic search page.
Ouch, this kinda backfired on you.
I’m with Tim.
This convo has nothing to do with internal, external. It should be about the value of the info in the link in the context of the article
Eric, have you actually ever used plain old common logic in your reasoning? Ever?
Your last paragraph says “search google and look at how crunchbase shows up in the top 10 results, this is why crunchbase is link worthy”.
Sure, but how can you reason that when the *only* reason Crunchbase is on the top 10 is because you have a million links to it in all your articles? TC is the one inflating the importance of Crunchbase and you use that exact same point in your case to reason to that Crunchbase is by this virtue, very important and link worthy?
Touche Mr. Eric. You need to take a class of LOGIC 101 for you. A priori anyone?
You do it all the time. It’s a pain in the ass.
But Firefox add-ons has a solution in Linkification, Link Alert, CoLT, and a wide range of other linking solutions.
It drives me nuts when the links go to CrunchBase.
Tim, TC isn’t in it for journalism. They’re trying to build the value of their network including all their sites for a massive $$$ exit.
Get with the program. That’s reality.
Wow!!! What a bunch of lazy fools! they are whining because they are getting good, free info on CB… Oh yes! it takes soooo much work to click on the other direct link…
BTW, screw O’Reilly — He getting darn senile anyway.
Jerry
Completely agree with Tim. Linking to CB is annoying. But what’s more annoying is the Snap hover-ups. Can’t stand them.
If you were at all technical, you’d know you could disable it with ease.
Personalization is not a substitute for poor design.
I agree with Tim. Most of the time you guys do link to Crunchbase, and only few times you do separate stating more information on crunchbase and here is the link to their site.
Joe, everyone understand logic 101 (you are not first one to take it
but every user has right to complain. I guess you were never customer oriented.
Wow!!! What a bunch of lazy fools! they are whining because they are getting good, free info on CB… Oh yes! it takes soooo much work to click on the other direct link…
What was that? linking to CrunchBase is “anti-web” — Please!!!
BTW, screw O’Reilly — He getting darn senile anyway.
Jerry
I’ve seen several sites that trick me into clicking links. For the love of god, when I click on a link that says “Android phone” or something like that, I don’t want to get a list of times that phrase is mentioned on a site. Link to the info!
Tim is right, 99% of the time the company’s website will be more useful than the CB entry.
About: “We do have some Google juice at TechCrunch, but even we couldn’t do that on our own.” I disagree, CB entries shows up on a google results *only* because of TC’s google juice. Nobody else links to that pages.
How about site owners link to whatever they feel like. It makes me crazy to hear phrases like “if it remains unchecked”. Who’s going to check it? Tim? Some panel?
How about the users? If they don’t like it, they won’t keep clicking. And believe me if it’s that big a problem, someone will write a plugin to convert all the CrunchBase URLs to redirect to the company in question.
Sheesh!
That is one of the more annoying aspects of reading TechCrunch. When I click on a link for a company I want to go to that company’s web site not a link to Crunchbase that has a link to the site. I’d say that 99% of the time this link to a link is counterproductive for me. Other readers usage may very.
Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, you should ask your readers what they prefer and if it’s clearly defined links or some sort of a standard then that extra couple of moments that fill this would be moments well spent ensuring your readers a consistent experience.
I really only think the incestuous linking is a problem when:
a) It’s not obvious that they’re properties of the same company, and it’s pretty obvious that TechCrunch and CrunchBase are owned by the same people. That’s kind of a disclosure issue, albeit a minor one, and
b) You make it a policy only link to your own properties. It’s just kind of a dick move to have all these incoming links and then go out of your way not to have any outgoing ones.
I like CrunchBase. Even though I don’t read it too often, it’s a cool idea.
Greg — Remember what a DICTIONARY is? Go check the word ‘incestuous’ — Now, does it really apply to TC???
The POINT is to make available to TC visitors valuable, free info about the companies TC covers. It is a FREE service…
jerry
Can we get crunchbase links at the bottom of the RSS feeds too?
One of the things I used to love about TechCrunch was that when I clicked on the name of a company in an article, the link took me there. I HATE that it now takes me to CrunchBase. My opinion is simply from a user perspective, plain and simple. In other words, I have no philosophical problem with TechCrunch trying to drive as much traffic as possible to their other sites and trying to make as much money as possible. But as a user, I HATE it.
OK, based on all the comments here it is obvious that we should look into being more consistent about our self-linking practices.
Thanks for all the feedback.
Erick - In reality, there is no need to change anything: keeping in mind that by just placing the cursor on a link, even the most confused user would realize where it would take her/him by clicking on it…
jerry
Jerry,
It would be great if everyone did that, but from many of the comments on this post, it’s pretty evident that many people don’t read links, they just click. But don’t worry, these are the same people who keep anti-virus / anti-malware companies in business.
I almost always look at my browser’s task bar to see where the words are linking before I click on them. I say techcrunch is not as bad as their other competitors like Mashable.
I don’t mind if you link to both, but you really ought to standardize the links. The logo should always link to CB and the first link int he article to the site itself (or vice versa). But it always seems random to me. Personally I have no interest in the CB profile so it would be nice if you always did it one way or the other.
Or even better, if both the logo and the first link went straight to the company’s web site, and then right after the first link, was another link to the CB profile. e.g.
_company_site_ (_crunchbase_profile_)
The CrunchBase links haven’t annoyed me much. The stub articles created solely to push traffic to CrunchGear are pretty bad, though.
Totally agree. You guys now have this strategy of self linking but, hate to say this, but your content just isn’t very professional. I know that must hurt but it’s true. Please link more to CNET!
I agree with the other ‘Dave’ above — “let site owners link to whatever they feel like” — if their users are not happy about it, they’ll let them know, and they’ll either change their habits or be replaced. I think Wisdom of Crowds works well here — heck, why not rip Yahoo for linking to their Yahoo Groups and other properties atop their results? If it isn’t useful, it eats into their profitability, no?
This post is a great example of that process — TC will figure out if their users like/hate the feature, and then adapt. And, if folks like it, the link-juice will flow over to CrunchBase, right?
Of course, CrunchBase definitely does compete with other startups like TradeVibes and others, but it’s TechCrunch’s prerogative to link where they want (if I owned TC, and I thought CB was a big strategic investment and feedback was good and improving, I’d probably drive more and more to it…)
I don’t think that the “Google loves us, we get to self-link” argument has much merit. But I do agree self-linking is appropriate when done appropriately.
How can you make 100% your self-linking is helpful and not annoying? Just make sure it is clear where the link goes. Calling the link “Twitter profile on Crunchmunch” instead of just “Twitter” lets the user decide if they want to click it or not, with no chance of getting misled. Kablamo, party time.