model was academic-style endnotes. But these also take a lot of work to prepare and format, and aren't very readable.
In the end, I decided to prepare a simple, easy-to-read list of sources consisting of a single paragraph with comma-separated sources. I've found it takes just a minute or two to prepare -- I usually build the list as I am writing, or sometimes check my browser history to verify what I've looked at.
It's not perfect. The most obvious shortcoming is the absence of hyperlinks to specific Web pages not mentioned in the body text. Adding links would not only help readers, but would also notify external sources that they are being referenced by The Industry Standard.
However, I have two good reasons for not doing this: The first is it would take too much additional time to manually add the links, and potentially dissuade others from using source blocks. In addition, having too many hyperlinks in a story sometimes signals search engines and automatic news aggregators that the page in question is not an article or a piece of commentary. This can reduce Web traffic, which would be problematic -- most news sites depend on display advertising, and we need all the help we can get in terms of referrals from Google, Techmeme, and other algorithm-driven websites.
What's your take on the use of source blocks? Is this level of transparency necessary, or helpful to readers? Should the experiment be expanded? Leave your comments in the space below.
Sources cited, referenced, or consulted: Blog.basturea.com, American Journalism Review (ajr.org), Editorsweblog.org, Glasshouse.waggeneredstrom.com, Techmeme.com, thelongtail.com, Washingtonpost.com, Wired. Photo by stan.
Comments
Ian, interesting approach. Source blocks seem a neat way to let your reader know that you're not speaking off-the-cuff but have actually researched your topic. Several bloggers I know would benefit from such a reception.
I don't blog much myself, and not about anything of a grave nature, but I try to work into the body of my post links to any stories I consulted, eliminating the need for a source block. I suppose in some situations that could prove unwieldy.
Ian,
I like this idea. I have tried this in the past with "stories" that I've written that are more compilations than actual stories, and the sources that I link to have typically been very appreciative of the credit. Seems like there may be just a little too much "borrowing" of ideas and content these days.
I'll be interested to see if this catches on.
Melissa
Wonderful idea. Don't know why this hasn't been a journalistic standard to date. I think I'll follow suit next time I write. I believe all sides benefit: the integrity of the writer/reporter/news organization, the sources, and most importantly, the news "consumer", or more commonly known as the reader ;)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Jason Preston has some additional thoughts about source blocks, and we are reaching out to some other people who may have some ideas about how to improve or promote source blocks.
Some questions to consider:
Are source blocks genuinely useful for writers and readers?
How could source blocks be improved?
What's the best way to evangelize the source blocks system?
Feel free to share your thoughts below.
Ian Lamont
Managing Editor
The Industry Standard
I believe readers want more access to "the horse's mouth" than ever before -- mostly because search technology has made it so easy to find those sources quickly. As a service to readers, and to make the block even more helpful to them, hyperlinks really should be included.
To assuage any concerns about traffic, take a look at the success of sites like the Drudge Report and ... Google. Those "trusted referrers" get tons of traffic simply by sending people away.
The challenge (for an ambitious journo-programmer who might be reading this comment) is to make it easy to add those links to your source block.
For many blogs, that challenge is easier to address. Many blogs already link to sources from within the body of a post. But the "link text" is frequently written in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of thought or break grammatical rules. Having a summary of those links -- a "source block" -- would help readers to quickly see and visit the sourced articles, along with their original headlines and the name of the site that it first appeared.
I was actually toying with that very idea in October. I fleshed the idea out a little more in this post:
http://almightylink.ksablan.com/2008/10/link-to-everything-twice-really/
As for concerns that search engines might mistake a legitimate article as spam, I have faith that the one search engine that matters the most wouldn't make that mistake -- or would fix it quickly. And all the other search engines will need to follow suit to remain competitive.
This is clearly an idea worthy of more discussion and experimentation. A few years ago, I began demanding of my students a non-publishable set of source notes with each substantial story. These were to be somewhat like academic references, but less formal. The results have been mixed. Among those of us who require such back-up info, there is considerable gnashing of teeth when students include a source note that is no more than a site's top URL. We reject "nyt.com" and such as insufficiently specific for such notes. So I both admire and fear the use of such brief bits in source blocks. Transparency and linkability are still under-used capabilities of the Web.
I think this is a great idea and one that should be adopted by traditional journalists and new media journalists as well. After all in my opinion the point of journalism is to help people gain information so they can form their own judgements. Source blocks helps with that. I am seriously considering adding the practice to my own blog, and already try to be as open as possible about what has helped to shape any particular article I write. Thank you so much for the idea.
Take care,
Toriach
Hey did you hear The One About...? Well you will if you check out my blog.
Post new comment