Nick Carr thinks that hyperlinks are getting in the way. Hat tip to Mathew Ingram to pointing out this post (via Mathew’s singular way of directing attention).
It’s a pretty simple question: should you include inline links (embedded within the text of your article or blog post) or should you save the links to the end of your post, like a set of footnotes?
I think Carr brings up a good point: links can be distracting and lead to tangential, unproductive Web browsing. Some of the cognitive science that Carr alludes to echoes what I’ve been reading elsewhere: the frontal cortex of the brain, which processes a lot of stimuli, including distinguishing what links are, gets tired and overwhelmed relatively easily. Maybe it hurts our ability to read, comprehend, and think to have links embedded within the text of a web page.
On the other hand… I think it’s extremely valuable to use inline text links. People are accustomed to them being there and clicking on them. They can add a lot to a post by providing context and letting the post be crisper, tighter, and more concise.
Maybe the problem isn’t putting breadcrumbs in our content, but instead teaching us how to read more effectively?
One other thought: don’t diagrams and images break up the flow of content, exercising the frontal lobe as well? Moving links to the end wouldn’t solve the entire problem of taxing critical parts of the brain.

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b8b3ba4f-5336-4e41-b733-6bc9a8d22c2f)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8bcdaf33-d0bd-4322-98b3-dad1e7987070)

![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=888b4a9d-98a1-48de-9e23-9072d2d08d9d)

