Wordyard

Hand-forged posts since 2002

Scott Rosenberg

  • About
  • Greatest hits

Archives

Wordyard / Culture / In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification

In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification

August 30, 2010 by Scott Rosenberg

For 15 years, I’ve been doing most of my writing — aside from my two books — on the Web. When I do switch back to writing an article for print, I find myself feeling stymied. I can’t link!

Links have become an essential part of how I write, and also part of how I read. Given a choice between reading something on paper and reading it online, I much prefer reading online: I can follow up on an article’s links to explore source material, gain a deeper understanding of a complex point, or just look up some term of art with which I’m unfamiliar.

There is, I think, nothing unusual about this today. So I was flummoxed earlier this year when Nicholas Carr started a campaign against the humble link, and found at least partial support from some other estimable writers (among them Laura Miller, Marshall Kirkpatrick, Jason Fry and Ryan Chittum). Carr’s “delinkification” critique is part of a larger argument contained in his book The Shallows. I read the book this summer and plan to write about it more. But for now let’s zero in on Carr’s case against links, on pages 126-129 of his book as well as in his “delinkification” post.

The nub of Carr’s argument is that every link in a text imposes “a little cognitive load” that makes reading less efficient. Each link forces us to ask, “Should I click?” As a result, Carr wrote in the “delinkification” post, “People who read hypertext comprehend and learn less, studies show, than those who read the same material in printed form.”

This appearance of the word “hypertext” is a tipoff to one of the big problems with Carr’s argument: it mixes up two quite different visions of linking.

“Hypertext” is the term invented by Ted Nelson in 1965 to describe text that, unlike traditional linear writing, spreads out in a network of nodes and links. Nelson’s idea hearkened back to Vannevar Bush’s celebrated “As We May Think,” paralleled Douglas Engelbart’s pioneering work on networked knowledge systems, and looked forward to today’s Web.

This original conception of hypertext fathered two lines of descent. One adopted hypertext as a practical tool for organizing and cross-associating information; the other embraced it as an experimental art form, which might transform the essentially linear nature of our reading into a branching game, puzzle or poem, in which the reader collaborates with the author. The pragmatists use links to try to enhance comprehension or add context, to say “here’s where I got this” or “here’s where you can learn more”; the hypertext artists deploy them as part of a larger experiment in expanding (or blowing up) the structure of traditional narrative.

These are fundamentally different endeavors. The pragmatic linkers have thrived in the Web era; the literary linkers have so far largely failed to reach anyone outside the academy. The Web has given us a hypertext world in which links providing useful pointers outnumber links with artistic intent a million to one. If we are going to study the impact of hypertext on our brains and our culture, surely we should look at the reality of the Web, not the dream of the hypertext artists and theorists.

The other big problem with Carr’s case against links lies in that ever-suspect phrase, “studies show.” Any time you hear those words your brain-alarm should sound: What studies? By whom? What do they show? What were they actually studying? How’d they design the study? Who paid for it?

To my surprise, as far as I can tell, not one of the many other writers who weighed in on delinkification earlier this year took the time to do so. I did, and here’s what I found.

You recall Carr’s statement that “people who read hypertext comprehend and learn less, studies show, than those who read the same material in printed form.” Yet the studies he cites show nothing of the sort. Carr’s critique of links employs a bait-and-switch dodge: He sets out to persuade us that Web links — practical, informational links — are brain-sucking attention scourges robbing us of the clarity of print. But he does so by citing a bunch of studies that actually examined the other kind of link, the “hypertext will change how we read” kind. Also, the studies almost completely exclude print.

If you’re still with me, come a little deeper into these linky weeds. In The Shallows, here is how Carr describes the study that is the linchpin of his argument:

In a 2001 study, two Canadian scholars asked seventy people to read “The Demon Lover,” a short story by the modernist writer Elizabeth Bowen. One group read the story in a traditional linear-text format; a second group read a version with links, as you’d find on a Web page. The hypertext readers took longer to read the story ,yet in subsequent interviews they also reported more confusion and uncertainty about what they had read. Three-quarters of them said that they had difficulty following the text, while only one in ten of the linear-text readers reported such problems. One hypertext reader complained, “The story was very jumpy…”

Sounds reasonable. Then you look at the study, and realize how misleadingly Carr has summarized it — and how little it actually proves.

The researchers Carr cites divided a group of readers into two groups. Both were provided with the text of Bowen’s story split into paragraph-sized chunks on a computer screen. (There’s no paper, no print, anywhere.) For the first group, each chunk concluded with a single link reading “next” that took them to the next paragraph. For the other group, the researchers took each of Bowen’s paragraphs and embedded three different links in each section — which seemed to branch in some meaningful way but actually all led the reader on to the same next paragraph. (The researchers didn’t provide readers with a “back” button, so they had no opportunity to explore the hypertext space — or discover that their links all pointed to the same destination.)

Here’s an illustration from the study:

Bowen’s story was written as reasonably traditional linear fiction, so the idea of rewriting it as literary hypertext is dubious to begin with. But that’s not what the researchers did. They didn’t turn the story into a genuine literary hypertext fiction, a maze of story chunks that demands you assemble your own meaning. Nor did they transform it into something resembling a piece of contemporary Web writing, with an occasional link thrown in to provide context or offer depth.

No, what the researchers did was to muck up a perfectly good story with meaningless links. Of course the readers of this version had a rougher time than the control group, who got to read a much more sensibly organized version. All this study proved was something we already knew: that badly executed hypertext can indeed ruin the process of reading. So, of course, can badly executed narrative structure, or grammar, or punctuation.

In both The Shallows and his blog post, Carr also makes reference to a meta-analysis (or “study of studies”) on hypertext reading studies, a paper that examined 40 other studies and concluded that “the increased demands of decision-making and visual processing in hypertext impaired reading performance.” But a closer look at this paper reveals another apples-and-oranges problem.

Carr is saying that Web links slow down our brains. But none of the studies the meta-analysis compiles looked at Web-style links. They all drew comparisons between linear hypertexts (screens with “next” links, not printed articles) on one side, and on the other, literary-style hypertexts broken up into multiple nodes where “participants had many choices in sequencing their reading.”

Every other study that I’ve looked into in this area shares these same problems; I’ll spare you the detail. These studies may help explain why there’s never been a literary-hypertext bestseller, but they don’t do much to illuminate reading on the Web. Carr talks about links having “propulsive force,” but does anyone really experience them that way today? Maybe in the early days of the Web, when they were newfangled, people felt compelled to click — like primitives suddenly encountering TV and jabbing their fingers at the channel selector, wondering what will magically appear next.

I think we all passed through that phase quickly. If your experience matches mine, then today, your eyes pass over a link. Most often you ignore it. Sometimes, you hover your mouse pointer to see where it goes. Every now and then, you click the link open in a new tab to read when you’re done. And very rarely, you might actually stop what you’re reading and read the linked text. If you do, it’s usually a sign that you’ve lost interest in the original article anyway. Which can happen just as easily in a magazine or newspaper — where, instead of clicking a link, we just turn the page.

Yes, a paragraph larded up with too many links can be distracting. Links, like words, need to be used judiciously. This is a long post and I have included only a modest number of links — all that I needed to point you to my sources and references, and most of which most of you won’t ever click. Overuse of links is usually a sign that the writer does not know how to link, which on the Web means he does not know how to write. But such abuse hardly discredits linking itself. Many writers still don’t understand that comma-splicing is bad grammar, but does that get us talking about the “de-comma-fication” of our prose?

For Carr and his sympathizers, links impede understanding; I believe that they deepen it. Back in 1997 Steven Johnson (in his book Interface Culture) made the case for links as a tool for synthesis — “a way of drawing connections between things,” a device that creates “threads of association,” a means to bring coherence to our overflowing cornucopia of information. The Web’s links don’t make it a vast wasteland or a murky shallows; they organize and enrich it.

“Channel surfing,” Johnson wrote, “is all about the thrill of surfaces. Web surfing is about depth, about wanting to know more.” As the Web has grown vast, that desire has grown with it. To swear off links is to abandon curiosity. To be tired of links is to be tired of life.

Tomorrow, in the next post in this series, I’ll examine some of the ways links are being misused on the Web today — driven not by some abstract belief in the virtues of hypertext but rather by crude business imperatives. Then, in the final installment, I’ll make the case for good linking practices as a source of badly needed context and a foundation for trust.

This is part one of a three-part series. The second part is Money changes everything. The third part is In links we trust.

Post Revisions:

  • August 26, 2019 @ 18:33:22 [Current Revision] by Scott Rosenberg
  • August 26, 2019 @ 18:33:20 by Scott Rosenberg
  • September 1, 2010 @ 09:34:59 by Scott Rosenberg
  • August 31, 2010 @ 06:46:13 by Scott Rosenberg
  • August 30, 2010 @ 06:52:22 by Scott Rosenberg
  • August 30, 2010 @ 06:48:06 by Scott Rosenberg
  • August 30, 2010 @ 06:22:50 by Scott Rosenberg

Filed Under: Culture, Media, Net Culture

Comments

  1. Robert Grunloh

    August 30, 2010 at 7:43 am

    This is a really good contribution to the debate going on. I’ve been reading “Hamlet’s Blackberry” along similar lines. I think linking per se is not so much the issue as the habit we form, and the need perhaps to choose to exercise a variety of modes of thinking.
    For example, when I read a print book now, if it mentions something I’m mildly curious about or don’t recognize, 5 years ago I’d just continue on; now I reach for the ipad or Wikipedia to check it out. It’s both empowering and um, “shallowing”. So I have to be aware, similarly to being aware of the limits of multitasking. Perhaps the younger generation we paint as flitting from tidbit to tidbit will really turn out to be just as good as us (I’m almost 60) once challenged to do so by a sufficiently interesting project or a good enough teacher. It all intertwines.
    Looking forward to more on this.
    rg

  2. Dirk Hanson

    August 30, 2010 at 9:41 am

    “Yes, a paragraph larded up with too many links can be distracting. Links, like words, need to be used judiciously.”

    Bravo! never thought I’d hear you say it. ;-)

    Thoughtful article, thanks.

  3. Terry Heaton

    August 30, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    Brilliantly done, Scott! Thank you for the work in deconstructing Carr’s argument.

  4. Nick Carr

    August 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Scott,

    Thanks for your attentive reading of my work (and for your advocacy of the careful, judicious use of links, which I fully support). Despite your vigorous hand-waving here, though, you don’t at all wrestle with the question of whether or not links add to the cognitive load of readers (ie, put more information into readers’ working memory, to the potential detriment of reading comprehension). That was the focus of the studies you discuss (which sought not to critique hypertext fiction but to evaluate the role of hypertext in learning, particularly in comparison to standard linear text). And that was the focus of my examination of the effects of links, which, it’s important to say, addressed links as one element among a number of other common elements of online experience (eg, multimedia, interruptions, multitasking) that also appear to contribute to the overloading of working memory and as a consequence take a toll on memory consolidation, comprehension, and learning.

    You give a good picture of how links add to cognitive load when you describe your own experience with them: “If your experience matches mine, then today, your eyes pass over a link. Most often you ignore it. Sometimes, you hover your mouse pointer to see where it goes. Every now and then, you click the link open in a new tab to read when you’re done. And very rarely, you might actually stop what you’re reading and read the linked text.” Links require evaluation and decision-making (even when you decide to ignore a link, you’re making a decision) that is extraneous to the process of reading. As I discuss at length in the book, such extraneous problem-solving adds to your mind’s cognitive load. That’s what the authors you quote mean when they report that “the increased demands of decision-making and visual processing in hypertext impaired reading performance.”

    The increase in cognitive load does not negate the many good qualities of links that you describe (and that, in my delinkification post, I’m careful to acknowledge). Indeed it’s the very fact that links often carry valuable information that requires us to give them consideration, at least fleetingly. The point is not that links are bad but rather that they have the effect of adding to the cumulative distractions that hit us as we navigate the web and otherwise engage with digital media. The cognitive effects of these distractions, the evidence indicates, impede comprehension and learning.

    I would certainly agree with you that we need more studies of the cognitive effects of links in the context of actual web use. I’m hoping that researchers are pursuing such studies.

    Nick

  5. Scott Rosenberg

    August 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Thanks for the response, Nick.

    I agree that “links often carry valuable information,” just as the rest of a text does. So the question is, do links deliver that information in a manner that is qualitatively less efficient (more demanding per piece of information) than the other ways that text delivers information? You’re arguing, I think, that they do. As far as I can tell, you’re saying that the problem is that somehow the information the link delivers is “extraneous,” whereas the rest of the text is not.

    This is where I lose you. The link’s information is extraneous only if it is an extraneous link. If it is a well-chosen link, the information is as valuable as any other piece of information in the text. (I can write bad prose in which one sentence has no relation to the next, and that will slow a reader down, too.) Sure, processing the link might take a little more time than reading the same passage without the link. But so would reading a longer sentence.

    We make all sorts of decisions all the time when we read texts, linked or unlinked: Do I turn the page? Do I need to look this word up in a dictionary? Do I flip a few pages forward to see how far I have to go to the end of this chapter? Do I look up this footnote or endnote? Do I stop reading because I’m no longer interested? A link is another decision to make, yes — but not an especially hard or time-consuming one.

    I’ve read these studies, and I don’t see how what they tested proves that links represent some specially taxing challenge to working memory. They may have set out to “evaluate the role of hypertext in learning,” but sadly, that’s not what they actually designed into their research. Instead, they proved — to return to the one I focused on here — that scattering meaningless faux links within a “text node” slows readers down and interferes with their comprehension. (Which anyone could have told them.)

    It is certainly possible for links to be distracting. In my next post I’m going to talk about how business-driven links often do just that. Links are powerful and should be used wisely. But I do not see how they “impair reading performance” simply because they are links. And I think a careful reading of the studies involved will show that they fail to support that conclusion.

  6. Dirk Hanson

    August 30, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    The judicious use of relevant links does not, in my opinion, add to the mind’s cognitive load any more than the decision to engage with a footnote or skip it. But sometimes as readers we resent authors who constantly intrude on our concentration by forcing that choice upon us too often. In the past, not everything a print nonfiction writer wrote down was automatically grounds for a footnote. These are choices a writer makes for reasons of clarity, style, tone, accuracy, whatever. Online readers shouldn’t be terrorized by links–but online writers shouldn’t feel duty bound to provide a fistful of links simply because it’s possible.

  7. Ramki

    August 30, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Scott ,

    I think , by referreing to ‘link infested surfing’ as ‘extraneous’ to the process of reading, Nicholas meant the process of evalvuating , making decisions to use/not ot use links everytime you see and NOT the actual content of those links.

  8. Nick Carr

    August 31, 2010 at 3:35 am

    What Ramki said.

    Scans of the brains of adept readers reveal that the decision-making portions of the prefrontal cortex are calm, allowing the reader to engage deeply in the process of interpreting meaning (which involves different areas of the brain). Making decisions about links, even when we’re not conscious of those decisions, requires the activation of the prefrontal cortex, which breaks the focus required for deep interpretation. That’s what’s meant be extraneous decision making – extraneous to the act of attentive reading.

  9. Scott Rosenberg

    August 31, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Having read The Shallows — attentively! — I understand the whole brain scan/prefrontal cortex part of your argument, and expect to present my concerns and criticisms with it when I write at greater length about the book. We can dig into those issues then.

    In the meantime, I just don’t see how you can extrapolate from that material to prove that links impede reading retention, comprehension, or understanding. And the studies you use to nail that part of the argument turn out, as I outlined in the post, to address quite different matters than links as we use them today on the Web.

  10. dave f

    August 31, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Every word on a web page or a printed page is a link — a link to an idea, a source, or a concept. Some links need more than can fit the page or current flow established by the author. In that sense, every link is a distraction or something that adds to the message. Put it another way, a writer has to make the choice whether the link is necessary or not. Readers may skip the link just as they may skip the word, page, or stop reading. Automated links to definitions, stock quotes, weather, place names, etc., seem to create unnecessary pop-up distractions each time the mouse pointer moves. But otherwise, judicious placement of key links in an article will help the reader despite the distraction. In short, authors have to carefully weigh the “cost” of such distractions to the value of the message.

  11. Atle Iversen

    August 31, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Very interesting article, Scott (I loved Dreaming in Code, BTW) !

    Nick Carr:
    “…the question of whether or not links add to the cognitive load of readers (ie, put more information into readers’ working memory, to the potential detriment of reading comprehension). ”

    I agree with you Scott, and find the original article by Nick Carr interesting, but wrong. There are always exceptions to the rule, and *sometimes* lots of (misplaced) links in an article can reduce reading comprehension. However, that is not a problem with hyperlinks, but rather a problem with the use of it !

    I treat hyperlinks mostly as bolded items; these are important/key items that often INCREASE my reading comprehension (especially when scanning text). As a bonus, I can easily click them to read more details (immediately or later, depending on context) which is a wonderful concept.

    Wikipedia is a great example of the power of hyperlinks, and a great “training tool” to get used to hyperlinks; the text is so filled with hyperlinks that you quickly learn to read the text without spending any extra cognitive effort.

    Of course, if you’re *looking* for a link containing more information, you’ll need to increase your effort, but it is still much more efficient (for many, including myself) to find what you’re looking for than scanning through the list of references at the bottom, as you can find the links in the context you’re interested in…

  12. Ed Cabrera

    August 31, 2010 at 9:04 am

    When you read a book and want to get more info on the subject you look at the bibliography for resources. If you like the author you look at his biography to see what else he’s written. With technology you can do this faster through links. If you are interested in the subject, links give you research power. Most people click on links to further their knowledge on a subject.
    If you’re satisfied with the info you have gotten from an article, you don’t have to follow the link. But, it’s nice to have the option.

  13. Timothywmurray

    August 31, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Scott, thank you for making this cogent argument.
    For me, what is mentally taxing about today’s writing, is deciding if I believe it. So much is inaccurate, that I very often want to find the source. It is important that the links be useful, but the absence of a link is more distracting. The only thing worse than not linking to a source is not citing a source with sufficient precision that it can be Googled. Carr’s argument is emblematic of a style of journalism (taught in many journalism schools) that shortens citations and sourcing to the point that the audience has no compass use for evaluation. Carr’s attempt to move all of the citations to the bottom of his posts would be interesting (but still wrong) if it were grounded in a solid framework which defined when citation is needed.

  14. raycote

    August 31, 2010 at 10:48 am

    A well defined link structure provides optional contextual drill down on demand as needed by the user. A proper, organically linked, set of contextual information mimics the brains own neural-net methods for modeling a complex world via indirect, recombinant, linkage of other sub neural-net information models. This facilitate globally efficient and effective knowledge processing for both pragmatic problem solving and artistic synthesis.

  15. Eric Ward

    September 7, 2010 at 6:31 am

    You wrote…”Overuse of links is usually a sign that the writer does not know how to link, which on the Web means he does not know how to write.”…Amen and thank you. Hyperlinks are a crutch. A wiki is a beautiful thing but not every page needs to look like one. Part of the problem has to do with search optimization “experts” forcing anchor text links on clients in hopes of appealing to search algos. The idea that a link is useless if it doesn’t contain a keyword in it. Please. This kind of search rank driven thinking and linking results in 250 word press releases about nothing with 249 links in them, also about nothing.

  16. Jared Stein

    February 20, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    Scott, you’re correct in calling out the “Demon Lover” literary hypertext study as misleading, however I have a hard time believing you’ve discovered this is typical of the research studied in the meta-analysis by Destefano and Lefevre. I haven’t walked through each study in that particular meta-analysis, but I am familiar with a number of studies on hypertext and cognition that use structural hypertext (e.g. document trees) versus linear hypertext (e.g. back – forward).

    Carr’s basing much of his conclusions on theory, of course, since no research is as conclusive as journalists would like to believe. But though research on hypertext and cognition is far from complete, it’s also more substantive than what you’re implying here. If you can list how each of the relevant studies in the Destefano meta-analysis focuses on literary hypertext as opposed to structural hypertexts, I’d love to see it.

  17. Scott Rosenberg

    February 20, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Hmm. This post is now six months old, so while I do remember reading that paper, I certainly don’t recall all the details now. I’ll have to dig up my notes as I have time and try to retrace how I reached my conclusion…

  18. Jared Stein

    March 7, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Yeah, sorry if I’ve stirred up ancient history by web standards. But I’m just now starting to dig into the research on hypertext, reading, and cognitive load myself as background for grad studies. (And I should correct myself: the Destefano paper is a lit review, not a meta-analysis).

    So far, my impression is /not/ that most of the experiments used literary hypertexts, but rather comparisons are usually hierarchical (think Table of Contents) or networked (think blogs, Wikipedia) hypertexts. Indeed, the literary examples are so rare (so far) that I wonder why Carr highlighted that particular example, as it is pretty ridiculous, even from a literary point of view (if I understand correctly, all the links led to the same/next page).

  19. jade

    April 19, 2011 at 1:08 am

    Dear Webmaster,

    While looking for the potential link partners, I came across your website and thus sending you this requesting mail. I feel that exchanging links (Non-Reciprocal) would be beneficial for both of us in order to get better rankings in SERP’s and traffic as well.

    I have all theme back links with good quality sites

    If you are interested to exchange links with us then kindly send us the exact location where our link will be placed. If you wish that your link should be added first, kindly send me details along with. We will add your link first.

    We hope for your co-operation and support. I assure you that this would be a long term business relationship. I appreciate your attention and wish you great luck for your site.

  20. MySite

    September 30, 2012 at 7:47 am

    If you would like to remedy impotence you do not need medicines,
    you can obtain a difficult hard-on by taking the enclosed herbal remedies and not only do they
    get you a tougher hard-on, these herbal remedies will do
    some thing which drugs simply can’t do and that’s increase your libido in the
    exact same time – lets consider a look at how they work.

    Herbs on the other hand, increase your libido so you benefit from the
    total sexual encounter.

    Many males get frustrated when they consider drugs because
    there’s no increase in sexual intercourse drive plus they need manual stimulation from the penis to get hard.

    Nitric oxide performs the vital function of opening up the blood vessels which lead to the penis, so they are wide enough to take the increased amount of blood in, to stiffen the penis.

    Firstly to get a difficult erection, you have to have higher amounts of nitric oxide produced within the physique and also the reason for this is easy – no erection can consider place if levels are too low.

    Testosterone may be the key male sexual intercourse hormone and is required for sexual intercourse generate and sexual stamina and also the good news is – Horny Goat Weed and Cnidium (which we have already mentioned) will give amounts a increase.

    You should also nevertheless consider Tribulus, because not just is it the best testosterone boosting herb, it also contains a unique blend of nutrients which improve sex generate and improve intensity and pleasure from orgasm.

    If you want to remedy impotence rapidly and naturally, you can get all of the above herbal remedies in the best organic hard-on supplements and they will get you a harder hard-on and also improve your sexual intercourse generate in the exact same time – try them and you’ll
    be glad you did.

    he reason herbal remedies are a better option to guy created medicines
    is – they have no dangerous side affects and because
    they increase sexual intercourse generate which is
    something man made medicines merely can’t do, lets consider a take a look at how the herbal remedies work.

    If you want to obtain an erection, you need to boost your amounts of nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is the key natural chemical which allows an erection to come to fruition – no erection can take place without having it.

    Prescription drugs do this but you don’t need them, the herbs Horny Goat Weed, ginseng and Cnidium, will
    do this as well and even better news is – they do it safely and normally.

    Herbs could possibly get you a difficult erection and treat impotence naturally –
    but they can also increase your libido which can be important, for the total all round sexual experience.

    Many males are left frustrated by guy made medicines simply
    because, they get them hard but they often require guide stimulation and this leads
    to an incomplete sexual encounter.

    The good news is – herbs can get you difficult, without manual stimulation plus they do this in
    a number of methods which are outlined under.

    Testosterone is needed for sexual stamina andlibido and Horny Goat Weed and Ginseng (which
    we have already pointed out) increase amounts but you should also
    consider another couple of herbs which are Tribulus and Tonkgat Ali.

    Last bit not least, the mind also plays a crucial
    role in terms of sexual health and if you are stressed, anxious worried or depressed, you won’t be able to focus on sexual intercourse.

    You can consider herbs that will enhance your mood and two good ones are – Maca and Ginkgo Biloba which both improve mood and give the body an energy boost at the exact same time.

    Within the best natural libido pills and not just will they treat impotence and give you a difficult hard-on, they may also improve sex drive and overall levels of wellness in the same time.

    psychological impotence is nearly guaranteed to impact males a minimum of once in their existence. Before individuals didn’t see this as an actual issue, they simply chalked it up to old age.

    But in today’s society this is really treated as a issue. You will find numerous methods for individuals to recover from mental impotence.

    Via recent many years psychological treatments have arrive a lengthy way via long arduous investigation and practice. Now that we know both the causes for that difficulties and how to alleviate them, it’s imperative that
    you simply take benefit of them.

    A large issue that may cause psychological impotence is
    either associated to a past issue or it is temporary. It can truly be a cycle
    of fear.

    A single issue can outcome in the fear of re-occurrence
    can create anxiety that will trigger the initial issue just as we feared.

    Even tough this kind of mental impotence is fairly stream lined.

    You ought to never be ashamed of this problem, and
    numerous men close to the world are afflicted by it every single day.
    This is the result of your emotions effecting you physically.

    A great way to solve this issue is to become relaxed prior to you become physical.

    Music and atmosphere is a great way to get into a seductive mood.
    Points for example these are excellent for lowering
    tension which may trigger the difficulties.

    Also you’ll need to be wary of exactly how a lot you are consuming. A man can shed his ability to turn out to be aroused whilst drinking alcohol. No matter what you do, too a lot alcohol can kill it for you.

    If depression may be the cause you’re suffering, it is greatest to
    solve that problem prior to you are able to use a real physical relationship.
    Basically mental impotence stems from a problem with your mental outlook.

    You’ll not preform nicely at all if you are depressed. Also, you need to realize that other relationship difficulties can stem from depression.

    But all in all the greatest method to deal with psychological impotence is to visit your physician. The doctor will let you know what you can do to offer with your problems and how you are able to go about treating it.

    Recognize that you aren’t alone, and also you have numerous routes on the path
    of curing your psychological impotence. Do not let embarrassment maintain
    you from finding out the way to offer with this issue.

    If you would like to cure impotence naturally, the good news is you can and not just can you get a hard hard-on, just like you are able to with guy created drugs; herbal cures will increase
    your sex drive and your general degree of wellness which
    can be some thing prescription drugs simply cannot do.

    Guy created drugs improve nitric oxide secretion and allow more blood to the penis but so
    Ginseng, Cnidium and Horny Goat Weed which being natural herbs have none of
    the side impacts of guy created medicines.

    If you want to cure impotence, you should increase your levels of nitric oxide
    because nitric oxide regulates blood flow into the penis and it does this by relaxing and widening the
    blood vessels which supply the penis with blood.

    Many men who consider man created medicines obtain a difficult hard-on but have no sexual desire and they end up needing manual stimulation to get an hard-on and this is
    frustrating.

    If you would like to enjoy the all round sexual experience you need to
    use a strong sexual intercourse drive and
    herbs can increase this as well.

    Herbal remedies increase sex drive because they
    increase testosterone and the Ginseng and Horny Goat Weed are excellent
    testosterone boosters but you ought to also consider Trubulus which can be
    seen as the best testosterone enhancing herb of all.

    The best herbal sexual intercourse pills for males which will give you better sexual wellness and much better levels of wellness
    at the same time – so if you want to cure
    impotence naturally try them and get a lot more from sexual intercourse and a lot more from existence.

    Sadly many men will suffer diabetic issues impotence prior to they do something about their
    blood sugar level. The diabetic has a poison in
    their bloodstream called glucose.

    Diabetes impotence is when the poison is cutting of life
    towards the male organ. The bloodstream is coming polluted and it is affecting the flow.

    Men may lose the ability to maintain intimacy. They may have the ability to
    begin but then will not be able to finish. Studies display the body without normal blood sugar amounts is aging faster than 1 with a typical
    sugar range.

    Male impotence refers towards the condition referred to also as
    Erectile Dysfunction, where for 1 cause or another, blood is not flowing to the penis properly, so that an
    hard-on could be achieved.

    Leads to for that illness range from 8 out of 12 from the top prescribed medicines of our day
    towards the outcome of mental disorder and actual deformity.

    Countless medicines list impotence as a side effect of the remedy,
    and a number of nerve damaging conditions can trigger ED. Depression, anxiety, and tobacco use are all stated leads to for impotence also.

    Male impotence has numerous different causes for the hydraulic problem that causes the penis to not function
    properly.

    Smokers are 85% a lot more at risk to be in this group. One of the most shocking statistic nevertheless, is that only a mere 10% of those afflicted with Erectile dysfunction or a comparable concern seek remedy
    and help.

    Impotence is really a severe condition that impacts 25% of our population sixty five many years of age and older. 5% of middle aged men and older today are afflicted by ED as well.

    After reading a couple of facts on the subject one hopes it’s sufficient to consult your doctor or begin to make modifications to stifle the effects from the condition and much better your quality of life instantly.

    If it’s just a couple of times then it should not be worried upon
    but if it is frequent or sufficient to bring you
    worry and tension then you have to look into just
    what is causing it.

    Impotence or Erectile Dysfunction happens to most males occasionally and for
    a variety of reasons.

    It is interesting to note that most males and even doctors (is it because
    they are male?) believe that most impotence causes stem from the mental
    aspects or lifestyle aspects of a man’s existence.

    But it can also be fascinating to note that 60% of the men that do go to their doctor with impotence difficulties end up being diagnosed with diabetic issues.

    So my recommendation is that if you are having a problem with impotence that’s causing you concern
    a minimum of go for your doctor to obtain the actual
    reasons out from the way.

    It can also be interesting to note that 80% of males with impotence problems use a actual cause for having them.

    Not performing any exercising and becoming a couch potato.

    That is lots of causes to go through, but if you have or are doing any of them then the very first thing you can do is stop doing them or go to your physician for help.

    However, consuming alcohol or utilizing any other intoxicants or adulterants can make it hard for the human physique to accomplish an erection.

    Alcohol and recreational drugs are recognized to be some of the most infamous libido enhancers for many years and many years.

    Having a glass of wine or two during social events may not be such a poor idea, however the rate to which the alcohol affects your libido negatively or positively really is dependent upon your physique type and size and weight.

    For example, should you weigh 165 pounds or so you could consume as much as about a half of the bottle of wine before seeing a decrease in your erectile functioning,

    Getting a glass of wine or two throughout social events might not be such a poor idea, however the rate to which the alcohol impacts your libido negatively or positively really is dependent upon your body kind and size and weight.

    Anything that affects a man’s testosterone in any way could possibly negatively affect that man’s sexual intercourse generate inside a negative way. Whilst drugs and alcohol could lead to sexual interaction in numerous situations.

    No matter what you choose to drink or what you plan to achieve after consuming takes location, positive decisions about consuming and drug usage are of utmost importance when considering your impotence.

    Think about making life modifications immediately should you ever hope to determine total improvement without having the use of medication.

    Nitric oxide and Impotence go hand in hand, because no man can ever get an hard-on without it but the good news is you don’t need to take man created drugs to boost levels, you can increase nitric oxide naturally and safely.

    These herbal remedies will not just boost amounts of nitric oxide, they may also increase amounts from the key male sex hormone testosterone, improve blood flow all close to the body, keep sperm wholesome and reduce tension and anxiety which can often cause impotence.

    You will find all of the above herbal remedies within the best men’s sexual intercourse pills plus they may also contain L Arginine; this is not a herb but a organic amino acid which helps the physique produce nitric oxide and if you boost amounts by getting it being a supplement.

    It’s been called natures Viagra and with great cause – it helps you get a tougher erection and boosts sexual desire and is a supplement all males ought to take, for much better sexual wellness.

    You are able to get all the above libido enhancers and a lot more, within the best organic difficult hard-on supplements which will help you remedy impotence safely and normally and they will also boost your overall level of wellness at the same time.

    1000s of males endure with impotency, frequently turning to potentially risky drugs. That�s why the Blakoe Ring is revolutionary. It�s verified to be the safest and most efficient solution to these problems.

    This increases blood flow to the sexual organs, helping the body to regain its natural capabilities. It also improves conditions for example: low sexual intercourse generate, reduced sperm count, underdeveloped genitals, and premature ejaculation.

    Male impotence remedies are an extremely popular subject correct now simply because many males are treating their erectile dysfunction normally.

    Because male impotence is triggered by a lack of blood flow under the belt, these remedies might assist you to by tomorrow.

    Begin your exercise program these days! Keep in mind the rush following a good function out? It’s verified that exercising has thousands of advantages such as: boosting flow, flushing cholesterol, reducing tension and increasing endorphins happy chemicals. Begin at 30 minutes a day and work as much as an hour.

    Practice breathing methods like only breathing via your nose for five minutes. You are able to do this at your work desk and you’ll be reducing tension and boosting circulation levels.

    Start your exercise program today! Keep in mind the rush following a good work out? It is proven that exercising has 1000s of advantages such as: boosting flow, flushing cholesterol, reducing tension and growing endorphins happy chemicals.

    You’re 1 from the couple of but there are thousands of men who are afflicted by young male impotence. Don’t be discouraged because you will find numerous methods to increase circulation downstairs and improve your libido.

    Erectile dysfunctions are generally a physical issue like poor flow. You will find a variety of leads to for ED but most individuals are afflicted by this common illness simply because of bad circulation.

    Lower flow amounts can be triggered by too a lot stress, a bad diet, poor lifestyle choices or even a lack of vitamins or nutrients.

    Vitamin therapy can also be popular with this remedy for erectile dysfunctions. Research is showing a strong correlation that most males who suffer from this illness are deficient in vitamin A.

    There are numerous things you should know about your eating habits however the best rule of thumb is to maintain your diet easy and fresh. Attempt to prevent fattening foods that are fried.

    Avoid particular things like alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine. All of these listed items are drugs which alter the physique in same shape or form. Investigation does show that avoiding these can help increase circulation downstairs.

    You will find also plenty of herbal remedies which have been shown to have a positive effect. For instance, horny goat weed is a common and efficient herb that’s shown to become a testosterone booster, aphrodisiac and also tension reducer.

    Deep breathes Did you know that simply trying deep breath exercises every day can help increase flow amounts and reverse impotence? Begin with large exhales and inhales for 5 minutes and do this three times daily.

    All men more than the age of 30 experience impotence as least as soon as in their lifetime. Estimating the numbers is hard because less than 2 males in 10 seek remedy for impotence problems. The conclusion is impotence is a very common issue in males.

    The big problem is it seems that for a big number of men, their capability to get an hard-on and have sex is viewed as an integral part of their masculinity and potency and could be debilitating to his mental health.

    First reaction of a guy dealing with impotence is to make excuses or prevent sexual situations with his partner in an effort to overlook about the problem. This tendency can frequently leave the partner feeling unloved, unattractive and unwanted.

    Encountering this issue, men must believe first that this is a very common male issue. He is neither alone nor unusual. There are more than hundred million partners of impotent males.

    consequence, the man’s failure to communicate his problem might contribute to frustration, stress or depressive disorders in his partner, or even cause relation failure.

    Couples who can talk openly about this condition have an excellent benefit. Sharing fears and worries is a very first step toward feeling better.

    Woman’s emotions regarding the impotence of her partner could be complex as nicely. But she must not forget that the male partner is heading via similar powerful emotions.

    Woman’s assist and understanding of situation is very essential. In a spirit of friendly cooperation, she must offer her support in solving partner’s issue going together to see a physician.

    Male impotence is really a problem whereby a man is not capable of sexually pleasing the woman in his life. This may be simply because of the weak hard-on a lot more popularly known as erectile dysfunction.

    Whenever you think about it for a whilst you slowly realise that a big portion from the male population prides itself for being effectively harmful in bed. And whilst some of those allegations may be true a large whole lot of them are false.

    These substances greatly decrease the circulation of blood close to the physique because from the deposition of fats in major arteries.

    The moment blood pressure decreases the veins within the penis are starved of the rapid circulation they need to erect a penis that is stiff enough for successful sexual penetration.

    Substance abuse has been cited as a cause of erectile dysfunction. Alcohol; cigarettes; and difficult medicines like cocaine should be gotten rid of correct way.

    Not so long ago it was discovered that impotence and diabetic issues go hand in hand. This means decreasing ones intake of foods with lots of sugar is 1 way of fighting impotence.

    When you have diabetes and continue to abuse sugar your diabetes will worsen and so will impotence have an effect on you a lot more adversely. Should you don’t know for those who have diabetes it would be a great tie to know so that you head straight into insulin remedy.

    The following time you’ve sex be certain to become calm and confident. Sometimes sex associated problems are attributed to anxiety and nervousness. Perhaps you’re too embarrassed about showing a certain part of the physique you think she will laugh at.

    Forget about everything and attempt to possess fun. A carefree attitude is important when it comes to sex.

    Viagra is really a pharmaceutical drug that is used by lots of males to trigger and preserve a stiff erection. For some men this works really nicely but you will find people who don’t have that much success with it.

    But sometimes the problem of obtaining a difficult hard-on stems from getting as well much intercourse within a short period of time. To have the ability to obtain a quick and difficult hard-on you ought to have the space of about three days until you have sexual intercourse again.

    Impotence is happen when a man can not achieve or maintain an hard-on within sufficient time to please himself and obviously, his partner. Impotence is frequently only though of affecting older males, however it’s quite typical place in young men too.

    Impotence in young men could be very stressful and it can also become a downward spiral due towards the fact that one bad encounter can cause a large amount of self doubt and anxiety.

    Impotence in youthful males can trigger further difficulties with low self esteem and other life issues in themselves as nicely as their relationships. But, possibly because impotence is not some thing which is openly discussed.

    Most males will develop impotence at some point within their existence. But in the majority of cases it is a one off occurrence, not a long term one. When impotence occurs more than the lengthy term it’s deemed a issue and this really is when professional advice and testing is required.

    The choices for impotence treatment in young men are generally not to take powerful prescription medicines. An alternative is herbal remedy as these are gentler and don’t cause side results.

    A young male can also be highly unlikely to want to take Viagra as they think about becoming an older mans impotence drug.

    The next option is to have a wholesome way of life. Avoid higher consumption of alcohol and medicines. Physical exercise frequently to create your blood flow smooth. Consider a healthy and balance diet.

    Impotence in youthful men usually disappears as they gain encounter and confidence in sexual circumstances and is very rarely triggered by a serious physical problem. At the same, practicing a wholesome way of life is much better choice then to remedy the impotence later.

    Exercise has literally hundreds of advantages but one specific one is that it will boost flow levels towards the penile regions. It has also been shown to decrease tension.

  21. lankanneeds.com

    November 5, 2012 at 11:51 am

    An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a colleague who was conducting a little homework on this. And he in fact bought me lunch because I found it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending the time to discuss this issue here on your site.

Trackbacks

  1. links for 2010-08-30 (Jarrett House North) says:
    August 30, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    […] In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification — Scott Rosenberg's W… Not all hyperlinks are created equal. Critiquing the written web by the standards of hypertextual fiction is misleading. (tags: writing hypertext) […]

  2. In Defense of Links, Part Two: Money changes everything — Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard says:
    August 31, 2010 at 5:32 am

    […] PREVIOUS: In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification […]

  3. Links Add Value That Print Can’t Match | O-I Newswire says:
    August 31, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    […] industry can’t compete with web content. This is not a new revelation, but after reading an interesting piece about the value of links by Scott Rosenberg, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen it spelled out […]

  4. links for 2010-08-31 « links and tweets says:
    August 31, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    […] In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification — Scott Rosenberg's W… […]

  5. Quick Links | A Blog Around The Clock says:
    August 31, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    […] 31, 2010 by Bora Zivkovic| Leave a comment Lots of great stuff today – here is a sampling: In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification and In Defense of Links, Part Two: Money changes […]

  6. In Defense of Links | Scott Rosenberg | Voices | AllThingsD says:
    September 1, 2010 at 12:02 am

    […] Read the rest of this post on the original site Tagged: Internet, Voices, digital, media, Hypertext, links, Nick Carr, Scott Rosenberg | permalink Sphere.Inline.search("", "http://voices.allthingsd.com/20100901/in-defense-of-links/"); « Previous Post ord=Math.random()*10000000000000000; document.write(''); […]

  7. Perhaps Avoiding Links Is Really A Way To Get People Not To Read The Details Of The Studies You're Misrepresenting | Techdirt says:
    September 1, 2010 at 4:37 am

    […] However, Scott Rosenberg is digging in and finding that, once again, it appears that Carr is conveniently misrepresenting the studies he relies on to support his anti-link thesis. The problem is that the study seems to show that poorly used and explained links distract people, […]

  8. In Defense of Links, part three: In links we trust — Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard says:
    September 2, 2010 at 8:54 am

    […] is the third post in a three-part series. The first part was Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification. The second part was Money changes […]

  9. Links « Beautiful Discovery says:
    September 3, 2010 at 5:10 am

    […] In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification This is such a dumb argument. Once you move past Carr’s trite, science-y “cognitive load” it should be clear to everybody that links, more often than not, only deepen one’s understanding of material. […]

  10. This Week in Review: USA Today gets a mobile makeover, Twitter and trust, and a paywall’s ad struggles » Nieman Journalism Lab says:
    September 3, 2010 at 7:09 am

    […] this a worthy addendum: Scott Rosenberg, who recently chronicled the history of blogging, issued a three-part defense of the link this week. A great examination of one of the fundamental features of the […]

  11. Cognitive Load and Other Loads « Beautiful Discovery says:
    September 3, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    […] me stupid!” nonsense from Carr seriously. We’re supposed to believe that links are a “distraction”. A distraction from what? From the author’s message? But unless you’re reading Viagra […]

  12. A Note on Links | Conversational Reading says:
    September 3, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    […] Rosenberg Post #1 […]

  13. Culture, Anarchy and the Conceptual Value of Links | Brian Frank says:
    September 5, 2010 at 2:33 am

    […] sat on it until Scott Rosenberg brought the topic up again this week with a series of posts, “In Defense of Links.” There was a lot of discussion after Carr proposed that we should stop inserting links […]

  14. Links: Not Just the Currency of the Web, but the Soul « says:
    September 6, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    […] startup called MediaBugs, has written an admirable series of posts defending the link as the heart and soul of the web. In his original post, Carr described links as “conveniences,” but said they also […]

  15. Links: Not Just the Currency of the Web, but the Soul | AniChaos.com says:
    September 6, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    […] startup called MediaBugs, has written an admirable series of posts defending the link as the heart and soul of the web. In his original post, Carr described links as “conveniences,” but said they also […]

  16. » Gør internettet os klogere eller dummere? Ja - Tech tjek - teknologi til folket says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:23 am

    […] Faren for distraktion er bestemt til stede ved indbyggede links, men disse mulige ulemper bliver mere end opvejet af fordelene. Med links får læseren serveret indgangen til yderligere relevant information. […]

  17. Blog de Ediciona » Blog Archive » En defensa de los senderos que se bifurcan says:
    September 7, 2010 at 7:25 am

    […] creciente pérdida de concentración de los lectores la soltó el autor Michael Carr. Al poco rato, Scott Rosenberg, uno de los fundadores de la revista Salon publicó una serie de posts en defensa de los links como […]

  18. Don’t save your links for the end — it’s more distracting! — Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:57 am

    […] found that the studies Carr relied on really didn’t support his case. Just as interesting to me was […]

  19. The Integrity of Hypertext – The Debate Continues « Media Circus says:
    September 7, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    […] discussion. In the last two weeks, the online debate has reignited, led by a three-part article by Scott Rosenberg contesting Carr’s original dialogue on “delinkification”. Carr’s distaste […]

  20. BIEB News Sources says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Links Don’t Chop Up The Web — They Knit It Together…

    Nick Carr, like the rest of the "Web rots our brains" contingent, views links as primarily…

  21. BIEB Volume Sources says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    Links Don’t Chop Up The Web — They Knit It Together…

    Nick Carr, like the rest of the "Web rots our brains" contingent, views links as primarily…

  22. BIEB Mobile Sources says:
    September 7, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Links Don’t Chop Up The Web — They Knit It Together…

    Nick Carr, like the rest of the "Web rots our brains" contingent, views links as primarily…

  23. Articles: Internet makes you smarter…dumber? « College Writing: The Digital Revolution says:
    September 12, 2010 at 6:29 am

    […] Rosenberg – In Defense of Links, Part one: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification and In Defense of Links, Part three: in linkes we […]

  24. Désir, internet, littérature » Le chantier says:
    September 13, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    […] mon texte propre, a modifié aussi mon approche du texte. | 7.1 De l’hypertexte comme assembleur de réalités diverses, point de rupture, point de bascule, ou, comme on dit en italien parlant des […]

  25. In the context of web context: How to check out any Web page — Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard says:
    September 14, 2010 at 6:02 am

    […] never understood this argument. As I tried to suggest in my Defense of Links posts, the convention of the link, properly used, provides more valuable context than most printed […]

  26. How to Make Websites That People Will Actually Use | Digital Tonto says:
    September 14, 2010 at 9:38 pm

    […] can find a good summary of the issues surrounding links here.  However, for starters, try to limit column links to three blocks of five links and use links […]

  27. links for 2010-09-16 « Innovation in College Media says:
    September 16, 2010 at 9:02 am

    […] In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification — Scott Rosenberg's W… I love the hyperlink, and discover more through its uses every day. Read the whole thing. via Will Sullivan (tags: journalism internet links onlinejournalism) […]

  28. BBC: Links As Footnotes and Curation Tool « WiredPen says:
    October 10, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    […] the Nicholas Carr “links can interfere with reading” arguments (and rebuttals) from earlier this year, the BBC guidance document is refreshing, if incredibly […]

  29. Link the entire post for all I care « Josh's Fun Place says:
    October 11, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    […] was relieved to read, however, the rebuttal by Scott Rosenberg.  I found myself rooting and cheering like the 1996 NBA Finals when the Sonics faced Michael […]

  30. week 2 – social and technological context « Digital Communication Technologies says:
    October 12, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    […] Numbers: In Defense of Links, Part 1, Scott Rosenberg […]

  31. Hyperlinking Body Content: Yes or No? « Amelia Cole says:
    October 15, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help.

    Search

  32. Murdoch’s Daily: post-Web innovation or CD-ROM flashback? — Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard says:
    February 3, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    […] day. It’s not just that. The Daily also contains no links. (Some today see this as a plus; I do not.) There are no RSS feeds. No email addresses to contact the writers and editors. No email alerts or […]

  33. En defensa de los senderos que se bifurcan « Actualidad Editorial says:
    August 1, 2011 at 1:37 am

    […] creciente pérdida de concentración de los lectores la soltó el autor Michael Carr. Al poco rato, Scott Rosenberg, uno de los fundadores de la revista Salon publicó una serie de posts en defensa de los links como […]

  34. Owark : combattre le link rot, un lien externe à la fois says:
    October 24, 2011 at 5:57 am

    […] un article et de choisir d’approfondir ou non certains sujets en suivant les liens. Comme le dit Scott Rosenberg, « les liens sont devenus un aspect essentiel de la manière dont j’écris […]

  35. Jared Stein – Education, Technology, Culture, and the Internet » What to do with Hyperlinks in Articles? says:
    July 7, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    […] But I’m increasingly curious about the impact of inline hyperlinks on our reading practices. Scott Rosenberg is right in pointing out that little, if any, research has been done using blog-link…. However, whereas Scott presumes this means they have no significant impact on cognitive load or […]

  36. “A large universe of documents” — Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard says:
    April 30, 2013 at 10:15 am

    […] The term that emerged from Ted Nelson’s work on hypertext, popularized by Apple’s HyperCard, meaning texts and documents that are connected by crosslinks. The Web made links second nature for many of us, but we still haven’t fully digested all their possibilities — or stopped arguing about their pros and cons. […]

  37. Jared Stein – Education, Technology, Nerd Stuff, Culture » What to do with Hyperlinks in Articles? says:
    September 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    […] But I’m increasingly curious about the impact of inline hyperlinks on our reading practices. Scott Rosenberg is right in pointing out that little, if any, research has been done using blog-link…. However, whereas Scott presumes this means they have no significant impact on cognitive load or […]

  38. The Integrity of Hypertext – The Debate Continues | Madelynn Martiniere says:
    April 22, 2014 at 6:24 pm



    In May of 2010 a debate was spurred by an article by Nicolas Carr, arguing the negative implications of hyperlinks in bodies of text. There was some heated debates between Carr, Jeff Jarvis, and Jay Rosen, which ultimately led to a mood point in discussion. In the last two weeks, the online debate has reignited, led by a three-part article by Scott Rosenberg contesting Carr’s original dialogue on delinkification.

    Carr’s distaste for internal hyperlinks is obvious:

    Sometimes, they’re big distractions – we click on a link, then another, then another, and pretty soon we’ve forgotten what we’d started out to do or to read. Other times, they’re tiny distractions, little textual gnats buzzing around your head. Even if you don’t click on a link, your eyes notice it, and your frontal cortex has to fire up a bunch of neurons to decide whether to click or not.

    This initial concept I have to agree with; whether you choose to click on the links or not, they are there and we must acknowledge it with mental capacity while reading. I doubt even Rosenberg would disagree on that point. Where the disparity seems to lie is in how much of an implication – whether positive or negative – this distraction can have on the reader.
    What Carr doesn’t address thoroughly is the belief that this distraction makes us less interesting, if not more stupid, as he mentioned in a June interview with The Atlantic:

    If we’re perpetually distracted from a young age…we will likely sacrifice some of the depth and distinctiveness of our intellects and our personalities. That’s not to say there won’t be compensations, and it’s not to say that we’ll be stupid, but it is to say that we’ll be less interesting.

    With his initial argument now straying from this concept of stupidity to interest, I find fault. The concept of what can be deemed interesting is highly personal and volatile. The inclusion, or lack of links in a blog or other internet document cannot be the global indicator of whether or not we link-users are interesting people.
    I would go so far as to say that using hypertext could have a serious and beneficial implication to education. For example, I choose to put links to Nicolas Carr’s article, interview and Steve Rosenberg’s article within the text to keep my readers informed. What point do readers have to read this article if they have no previous information on the topic? That doesn’t mean they cannot find the information on their own via Google or another search engine with ease, but I would rather keep them at close range with my initial article with easy access to the background information. Perhaps I’m creating lazy readers, as some media theorists would argue, but they are certainty not ill-informed. Even if you’re not an academic with several books under your belt, it can provide academic integrity for the author. Carr acknowledges this concept momentarily in his article:

    The link is, in a way, a technologically advanced form of a footnote. It’s also, distraction-wise, a more violent form of a footnote. Where a footnote gives your brain a gentle nudge, the link gives it a yank. What’s good about a link – its propulsive force – is also what’s bad about it.

    Rather than a distraction, I’ve yet to see a problem with optional, easily-accessible resources of information to further intellectual stimulation. If you’ve been on the learning side of the academic sphere anytime recently, you may remember the constant pressure to cite, to quote and to research before making an argument, and of course to cite those materials. We have an opportunity now to create texts that are more interactive, to allow readers to make their own conclusions with the information given to them, whether they choose to find more information or not.
    Rosenberg makes a significant point to remind the readers on the history of the hyperlink:

    This original conception of hypertext fathered two lines of descent. One adopted hypertext as a practical tool for organizing and cross-associating information; the other embraced it as an experimental art form, which might transform the essentially linear nature of our reading into a branching game, puzzle or poem, in which the reader collaborates with the author.

    It would seem that Carr is in agreement about the practical uses of hypertext, or else he would not be providing links at the end of his articles at all. As an art form, we find conflict because there is no one way to determine the advantages and faults of a medium, and it is certainty not up to just one person to find it. By arguing against hypertext because it is a distraction, it can also easily be argued that access to information is a negative concept. If someone is willing to make a valid argument against information I’ll be listening.
    I obviously don’t agree with Carr, but I can’t agree completely with Rosenberg either. What I can say for Rosenberg’s article is it is much more fleshed out and detailed (and the embedded hyperlinks help). I don’t claim this to be a perfectly detailed argument with a definitive conclusion either, but I’m curious to see the outcome of the revival of this debate. More ideas, more arguments and more voices on a topic always excites me, particularly because concepts and beliefs on media change as rapidly as the technology itself.
    Photo from Flickr user Make a Scene Photography under Creative Commons License

  39. morgan says:
    May 22, 2015 at 8:09 am

    RiTa Gallery – A set of generative prose and imagetexts written using RiTa, an open source procedural language generator. Two reasons to include here: to show how even good poetry can be hijacked in to formula (Exra bot), to suggest that YoU ToO can lEarn to pROGram, and because the collection includes a generative piss-take of Harry Potter at http://robclouth.com/harrypotter/ – (DH procedural_rhetoric generative_prose generative_poetry RITA Processing )
    Why Technology Will Never Fix Education – Commentary – The Chronicle of Higher Education – Please, let this realign admins and IT departments pushing online ed to a reality. Please please please. – (de mooc lms online )
    In Defense of Links, Part One: Nick Carr, hypertext and delinkification — Wordyard – Critique of Carr’s assertion about links as distraction. “Links, like words, need to be used judiciously.” First part of three posts on significance of links. Followed in 2015 by his Failed Promise of Deep Links. – (hypertext reading web links fedwiki linking )

  40. 既然手机里塞满了应用,你有必要知道什么是“深度链接” 闪新闻 says:
    May 26, 2015 at 12:03 am

    既然手机里塞满了应用,你有必要知道什么是“深度链接”
    by 眯眯 笑 · 2015年5月26日

    本文由 Medium 和 Scott Rosenberg 授权《好奇心日报》发布。Scott Rosenberg 是一位作家兼 Backchannel 频道撰稿人,从 1994 年起开始关注网络,著有《Say Everything》、《Dreaming in Code》。

    大约一年前,我看到“深度链接”(deep links)相关的内容开始大量出现在头版新闻中。很快我就发现,开发者们拼命想让手机上各个应用软件联动起来——用户只要点击某个应用软件上的某个链接,页面就会自动跳转到另一个应用软件中的相关内容。深度链接其实就是生成一个虫洞,直接将用户从某个应用的特定页面导向另一个应用的特定页面。这样一来,你就不必再打开浏览器或者网站主页了。

    这可是件好事儿。如今的手机塞满了应用,就像三十年战争时期的德国一样,封邑林立,诸侯效忠的对象时有变化,纷争不断。要是有什么能让这些各自为政的应用软件联合起来,那确实是帮了大忙。

    关于“深度链接”的谷歌趋势图

    但在回顾相关报道时,我注意到了些奇怪的事。“深度链接”这个概念其实很久以前就已经提出了,但却没有人将这股手机应用软件互联协作的热潮,与我印象里 1990年代的网页“深度链接”热联系在一起。

    “深度链接”让用户可以绕过网站主页,直接查看某些特定的页面、商品或者内容。从 1990 年代起,不少网络相关的法律争端都由此而起。一些商人并不喜欢这种模式,认为这些人是在偷取自己网站的访问流量。这些商人并不懂网络的工作原理,他们常常向法院提出诉讼,但却往往以败诉告终。

    如今,“深度链接”这一概念出现在了手机中,大家似乎都把它曾经的过往忘得一干二净,完全把它当成一个全新的事物来接受——没人记起它曾经的来龙去脉。我说这话没什么别的意思。只是这就像是有人如今开拍了一个新的喜剧节目,给它起名叫做“巨蟒剧团”(Monty Python,英国六人喜剧团体,被誉为喜剧界的披头士),但却不透露一点这个节目名的来历与过往。

    这种把深度链接的过往完全抹去的做法其实颇具讽刺意味,因为链接就是为了厘清事物之间的联系而发明的。发明深度链接的人认为,它能够以一种颇具启发性的方式将彼此相关的概念相连,让人产生新的思绪,将不同的想法联系在一起。要是 20年前,网络时代这些远见卓识的人真的达到了他们的目的,那么以重新定义使用“深度链接”这一术语为代表的科技文化健忘症压根儿就不会发生。他们所设想的那种真正的深度链接应该已经确保了这一点。

    如今,网络链接主要起到导航和注解的作用。我们不再使用链接来分享我们思维火花擦出的相关知识之间的联系,而是留下了一大堆数据,供商家寻找其中的价值。

    事情为什么会发展到这种地步?哪些本该提醒我们“深度链接”这一概念已经存在的链接去了哪儿?让我们从头开始说起。

    网络是如何互相连接的

    今天我们所熟知的互联网上的各种链接,是许多擅长深入思考的人长久以来沉淀下来的成果。

    首先我们要说的是美国工程师万尼瓦尔·布什(Vannevar Bush)。1945年,他在美国《大西洋月刊》(The Atlantic)发表了一篇著名的论文。在文中,他构想了一种叫做麦麦克斯存储器(Memex)的设备,研究者们可以用它来形成并捕获脑海中掠过的各种“关联线索”。从技术上来说,他所处的时代还制造不出这样的设备。而且,麦麦克斯存储器的运行似乎需要很多微缩胶卷。当时还没人能把这一构想变成现实,但是布什的这一伟大设想背后的理念却不胫而走:我们的科技能够、而且也应该让我们主导信息流动的方向,让我们得以重现、分享自己的思维模式。

    “把两件事联系在一起的这一过程非常重要……这以后任何时候,当你看到其中某件事时,只要按一下按钮,就能马上回想起另一件事来……而且,如果联系在一起的事情很多,并且形成了一整条信息锁链,你完全可以挨个回顾它们,既可以快速浏览,也可以慢慢回想……什么东西都能加入到各种各样的信息锁链上来……而且这些信息锁链不会消失褪色。”

    二十年后,计算机先驱人物道格拉斯·恩格巴特(Douglas Engelbart)创造出了一种工具,并进行了展示,他创建的这一工具不仅实现了布什的设想,而且还具备了和他人协作互动的功能。点击你档案里出现的单词,屏幕就会重新加载,页面可能会跳转到你档案的另一页,屏幕上也可能会显示你档案里的另一件东西。除此之外,你也有可能会看到许多其他的人写下的与此相关的事物——而这正是恩格巴特的工具最棒的地方。

    几乎与此同时,信息技术员泰德·尼尔森创造了“超文本(hypertext)”这一词汇,用以描述恩格巴特这一系统的功能。其后,苹果推出的应用程序超级插件(Hypercard)和电脑光驱(CD-ROM)让更多人感受到了恩格巴特这一系统的作用。最后,英国计算机科学家蒂姆·伯纳斯-李(Tim Berners-Lee)精简了这一系统,将其运用在了自己对互联网络的设计上——于是万维网(World Wide Web)诞生了。

    在互联网建立之初,发现链接其实是一种充满乐趣的东西——而很多人现在已经想不起这一点了。当时记者加里·沃尔夫在 1994 年一期《连线》杂志最显眼的位置,向广大读者介绍了网页浏览器 Mosaic:“Mosaic 浏览器不是寻找网络信息最直接的方式,它也算不上是最强大的方式。它只是用起来最让人愉快的网络信息搜寻方式……只需轻轻一击,链接所指向的内容就会出现在你眼前——如今,你可以跟随链接,随心所欲地畅游网络世界了。”

    只需点击鼠标,你便可以随心所欲在不同链接中跳转。这简直像是奥兹魔法师的魔法一样,有趣极了。但是,链接的魅力还不止于此。有了它,创建自己的个人主页、在网络连接中添加新的跳转站点都变得不可思议的简单。有了它,你哪怕不是计算机科学家或者程序员也能玩转奥兹的魔法。它可以帮你成为一个电脑高手,还可以让你更加耐心。网站 Suck.com 调皮的创建者们还发现了另一种使用链接传达信息的方法:“他们在文章的句子中添加链接,把句子做成了一个个谜语,而链接则是解开这些谜语的线索,”史蒂文·约翰逊(Steven Johnson)在其 1999 年出版的著作《界面文化》(Interface Culture)中写道,“你得点击这些链接,才能让句子的意思连贯。”现在这样使用链接的人不多了,但是从中我们可以看出,链接让一代网络创作者意识到,HTML 表单可以传达非常复杂的内容。

    随着网络的飞速发展,我们开始明白,链接不仅有趣,它的作用也非常大。链接让我们得以把在网上看到的东西综合起来。你可以利用链接绕开新闻网站、商家网站或者政府网站的官方主页,用你自己的主页代替它们。1999 年出版的《线车宣言》(Cluetrain Manifesto)一书讲述了关于网页跳转的内容,而这本书本身就是由网页内容整理而成的。该书的几位作者称,网络正在将市场和其他所有事物转向“对话交流”模式——简单说来,就是:“超链接颠覆了等级制度。”这一度是网络链接唯一的作用。这也就是为什么你会看到公司动不动就起诉“用深度链接的人”,想要保护他们自己在等级制度中的地位。

    接着,Google 出现了。它让我们看到了链接作为权威和价值信号的另一面。谷歌把这些信号整合在一起,创建了高质量的网络目录。最终,它为这些链接标上价格,找到了自己的生财之道——很快,我们的屏幕上就充满了恶意链接、垃圾博客和虚假链接。(译注:垃圾博客是指推送相关附属网页内容、增加网站相关搜索结果数量,或者只出售链接或广告的博客。)谷歌本意并不是要毁了链接在我们心目中的形象,但事实却是如此。谷歌开创了一种新的网络生财之道:将文字链接广告放到经过了搜索引擎优化的页面上,从中赚取利润。事实上,现在人们之所以会把链接放到网页上,是因为从某种意义上它是有意义的。链接成为了多方博弈游戏中的一个招数,游戏中的赢家可以不断得到小额的回报,并积少成多。

    突然间,链接变得不那么有趣了。它不再是一种帮助我们思考、创建信息之间关联的辅助思维方式,转而摇身一变为了一种功能性工具。它成了将用户导向其他网站、让用户在社交媒体上分享内容的工具。最终,链接成为了一种诱使人们点击的诱饵:商家争相想在我们的脑海中留下印象,链接的存在明显是为了诱使我们点击前往某个网站,产生访问流量。我们开始争论,链接到底对发现信息与信息之间的关联有没有帮助?它是否只是件让我们分心或者愚弄我们的东西?

    如今,链接很少起到联结想法的作用了,它更多地被用于说明参考资料的来源。链接没能让我们将各种信息联系在一起,建造出宏伟的教堂,反倒让我们的地下室里堆满了各种脚注。我们大多数人只是将链接视作一种点击前往其他网页的按钮,或者将其视为向我们的朋友传递信息的工具,而不再将它视作一种创造的工具。科技产业决定创造所谓的“深度链接”时,它自身的信息管理与检索体系却没能帮助它发现,这一概念早已在历史上出现过了。

    将手机紧密联系在一起

    从网络普及的那一天起,它就是由一窝蜂链接组成的。(但有时,甚至连科技记者都会忘记这点。)链接造就了网络,要是没有它们,难以想象网络会变成什么样子。网络链接就是网络的发展史,展现了早期网络用户找到彼此的方式,以及他们分享事物、创建自己世界的方式。至于弹出式广告、重新定位的信息、能够带来利润的链接——那都是后来才出现的东西。

    而在手机上,事情发生的顺序似乎掉了个个儿。你先是试图靠营销内容建立一个彼此交错的链接网络,然后才开始尝试在其中加入用户的各种属性。

    如今,有些公司开始致力于用深度链接联系各个不同应用软件,Button 正是其中一例。其联合创始人克里斯·麦登(Chris Maddern)说,如今手机应用软件之间互相协作的速度和精准度都令人不甚满意。

    “大公司向网站支付报酬,以此换取在你眼前出现一瞬的机会——它可不管你是不是愿意。这如今已经不是什么秘密了。”麦登说道。而 Button 想要通过“抓住用户的想法”,改变这一现状。比如说,你在《纽约时报》上读到了一篇关于西班牙巴塞罗那的文章。你想马上就在房屋出租网站 Airbnb 上租套那儿的房子。要是你用的是手机,你就得关掉你的《纽约时报》应用软件,然后打开 Airbnb 应用软件搜索“巴塞罗那”。但要是你用的是网页浏览器,你就可以点击链接,直接从文章页面跳转到 Airbnb 网站——而且是直接跳转到列出巴塞罗那出租房列表的网页。

    麦登认为,如果我们能在各个应用程序之间实现同样的功能——Button 也确实推出了一款流行的开源软件工具包,帮助开发者将之付诸现实——那么我们就能用“沿着网络层层流回的合作收入瀑布流”取代旧有的广告制度。这样的功能一旦实现,各个移动终端平台早晚会开始聚合在一起,形成一个和当今网络世界一样内容丰富、功能多样的世界,让我们得以随心所欲畅游其间。

    “目前我们还是要依靠网页来搜寻、发现新的事物,”麦登说道,“从一个应用直接跳转到另一个应用的技术目前还未成熟。人们现在还是会惊喜于‘天哪,你可以用深度链接把两个不同应用软件中的内容联系在一起’,而一旦这阵新鲜劲儿过去了,我们就要开始考虑如何用有趣的方式建立一个索引目录,使得在应用软件中同时发现并直接指向用户创造内容和商家创造内容成为可能。”

    麦登很有自信地认为上述一切一定会成为现实。不过目前我们有理由担心,深度链接在很多时候会被商家利用来向我们售卖东西。Deeplink.me 是另一家致力于开发手机应用软件深度链接功能的公司,公司网站上贴心地用‘仅供市场营销人员参考’的标签标示了部分内容。在这部分网页上,它是这样说的:

    “用户安装了你的应用软件,他们就要买双蓝色的鞋了,但就在这个时候,他们却改变主意,退出了软件。

    我们设计推出了一个独一无二的动态创新插件。

    它可以向这些用户展示蓝色的鞋子,让他们在使用其他应用软件时,也能看到蓝鞋。

    用户只需轻轻点击,应用软件就能自动跳转到购物车界面,并且这时,这双鞋已经被放在购物车里了。”

    好极了!现在只要上网,广告就追着我们四处跑,提醒我们,我们曾经考虑过要买某双海军鞋当礼物,但后来又想到了比这更好的礼物——这些广告会出现在各种地方,像网络世界的哈耳庇埃(harpies)一样,追着我们从一个应用软件跑到另一个应用软件。(译注:哈耳庇埃是希腊神话中一种贪婪的鸟身女妖,只要有食物出现,她们就会冲下去把它抢走。)

    仿佛被蓝色鞋子追着你打开所有的应用软件还不够可怕——这一深度链接的反复出现还有更加黑暗的一面。大多数应用软件都是私人开发的,只有在开发者允许的前提下,你才能在软件里添加深度链接。换句话说,要是移动计算平台不发生什么根本性的转变的话,移动软件世界的等级制度跟本不会发生实质性的改变。

    与此同时,我们碰到的大部分网页链接不是被动受到他人控制,就是平平无奇、毫不出彩。我们现在是否该奏响哀乐,把链接送入坟墓了?我就此事询问了《线车宣言》一书的作者之一大卫·温伯格(David Weinberger)。这些年来,他写过不少关于网络意义的好文章。

    “链接组成了一个语义关系网络,这是人类历史上一大了不起的进步。而且我不认为它会从我们的生活中逝去,”他说道,“我确实担心,那些没什么高超设计理念、背后也没有生产公司支持的普通人会忘记他们也能利用链接建立语义关系网络。无论从哪个角度来说,链接仍然有着以前那些特点——只是它们现在已经不再属于我们这些用户了。而那将会是一大损失。”

    拿回我们的思维链

    不是每个人都迅速举起了白棋,放弃用链接建立语义关系网络。万尼瓦尔·布什最初的设想理念比目前我们所实现的更加宽泛,他认为,科技能够让我们画出并分享我们思绪和想法的“关联线索”。虽然现在的工具不甚完美,实践运用的结果也不甚理想,但还是有一群人始终坚守着布什的这一观念。这些人都狂热地喜爱着“个人信息管理软件(PIM)”——也就是就是霍华德·莱茵戈德(Howard Rheingold)口中的“思维放大器”。(莱茵戈德的著作《思维工具》(Tools for Thought)自早先出版以来,就一直是这一领域颇具预见性的编年史著作。)

    早在我们还在用 Lotus Agenda、More 和 Ecco 等个人信息管理软件时,这类思维导图、列提纲和记笔记的工具就已经伴随在我们左右了。每当作家或者演讲者使用 Tinderbox、DevonThink、Scrivener、Workflowy、Evernote 或任何一款你喜欢的此类软件整理思绪时,他或她就是一定程度上在将布什对麦麦克斯存储器的设想付诸现实。

    举个例子:1990 年代以来,经验老道的技术专家兼咨询顾问杰瑞·麦考斯基(Jerry Michalski)就在使用一款叫做 The Brain 的思维导图软件创建一个相互连接的思维和链接网络。他是这么向我描述的:“我在创建一个巨大的思维网络,把所有在我看来重要的内容联系在一起。”前些时候,该网络的内容条目达到了 20 万个,而麦考斯基还在每天往这一网络中添加新的链接。他把自己的这一网络公布在了网上,最近还推出了 iOS 应用版。

    麦考斯基记录自己的思维历程当然有他自己的目的,但与此同时,他也愿意不辞辛劳地将这一历程与全世界分享。如果你和我一样喜欢探索组织、实现各种想法以及与之相关联的内容的不同方式,那你一定很高兴能够看到麦考斯基的种种思绪——事实上,其他类似的实验项目你也一定会喜欢。(史蒂文·约翰逊详细写下了自己的DevonThink 使用记录,《大西洋月刊》的詹姆斯·法洛斯则好几年来都对这一领域的内容进行了详细的记录。)他们和麦考斯基一样,付出了宝贵的努力,但是大多数此类项目都只是一座座思维孤岛,人们很难深入了解、一探究竟。目前这类工具采用了封闭模式,用户记录下来的材料还不能被发送或者分享出去。

    关于合作,这里还有另一个例子。几年前,多人协作写作系统维基(wiki)的创始人沃德·坎宁安(Ward Cunningham)按下了重置键,清除了自己原本的想法,产生了一个新点子。他想要将维基和 Github 版本控制系统相结合,创造出全新的“联邦维基”(federated wiki)。以前的维基(维基百科是其最为知名的维基系统应用网站)以能够让任何人编写每篇文章而著称。而在联邦维基的模式下,你只能修改自己的文章,但是你可以引用任何其他用户编写的内容,把它“克隆(fork)一份”固定下来——也就是说,一旦你引用了他人某个版本的文章后,原作者如果再对文章进行修改,你所引用的内容也不会发生变化。这些被“叉起来”的内容包含了自身的历史,每一段数据都带有自身的来源信息。网页的原作者既可以吸收采纳你的修改,也可以无视你的改动。

    如今,联邦维基的用户规模还很小,只有一些早期用户参与使用。它的使用规则很难解释,要想参与使用也很困难。但是,它的理念却在一些探索者们中间得到了推广。现在它所要做的就是扩大自己的用户基础,不要局限在一小群忠实用户之中。(比如说,它可以采取美国 Grateful Dead 乐队粉丝早期推动成立先锋网上社区 The WELL 时所采用的方式。)坎宁安关于联合维基的设想如果真的能够完全实现,那么他将会建立起一个思维网络,在这个网络中,每个人都能够因为他做出的贡献而获得声望,并且任何人都能够借鉴他人的想法,在他人想法的基础上提出自己的观点,或者对他人的观点进行反驳——而且,所有这些互联关系都会被原封不动地保存下来。

    坎宁安和麦考斯基所使用的这些工具要求我们主动照料我们自己的“超文本花园”(这个词本是 Tinderbox 开发者马克·伯恩斯坦[Mark Bernstein]提出的)。这需要花不少精力——而我们中大多数人永远也不会花这么多精力在这上面。不过,这里还有另外一种完全不需要我们费力的思绪追溯法。

    我们留下的所有讯息

    其实,我们每个人每天都在实现布什的麦麦克斯存储器构想,无需主动出击,也无需任何思考——我们在电子设备上的每一次点击与滑动,都是在创立我们自己的麦麦克斯存储器。我们点击的链接、我们阅读的网页、我们拍下的照片和我们发送的信息,无一不在诉说着我们生活的故事,以及我们脑海中充斥着的种种思绪。不过大多数时候,我们自己都无法接触到这一纪录了我们使用网络服务与云端服务情况的资料夹。然而,那些向我们提供服务的公司却能够得到这些信息,对其进行分析、发现其中的价值,并向我们出售各种物件——可大多数情况下,我们自己却不能像这些公司一样接触到这些数据,也不能根据我们自己的需求分享这些内容。

    一些勇敢的初创公司和设计项目想要纠正这一不平衡的状态,让大数据为小人物服务。比如说吉娜·特拉帕尼(Gina Trapani)和阿尼尔·达什(Anil Dash)设计开发的 ThinkUp 软件,就能够深入探究你在 Twitter 和 Facebook 上的一举一动以及行为方式,而且,它会将这些信息发送给你自己,而非市场营销人员。

    就目前而言,市面上还没有其他和 ThinkUp 类似的软件。这并不是因为人们不了解个人信息自动记录方面的问题,也不是因为人们对此毫无怨言。只是大多数时候,人们往往会这样看待个人信息自动记录问题:我们的隐私受到了侵犯——滚出去!有人偷取了我的信息并利用它获得了经济利益——我为什么不能拿到报酬?

    与此同时,还有一大损失我们目前还未怎么接触到:我们的数据产生后,留下了一道淡淡的尾痕,那些可以为商家带来利润的细节被抽走了,其他的部分则蒸发不见了。这抹去了一些和文化相关的东西,给我们带来了思想价值上的重大损失。我们每天在网上组织起来的信息无法在日后给我们带来启发——我们不是把它们随手扔掉了,就是把它们拱手送给了 Facebook、Google、苹果或者亚马逊。

    对此,麦考斯基是这样说的:“这就好像我们留下了一张自动记录了我们某一想法的小纸条。这张小纸条以不同的方式、在不同的时间燃烧着思维的火花,但是你却不能利用它重新构建起整个思维框架和与之相关的各种联系。而且似乎也没有人在意这点。我们都抱着这样一种无所谓的态度:‘是啊,到处都是这种自动记录了我们想法的小纸条,看看这个——都能搞个纸条展览了!’我们现在就淹没在这些纸条里,几乎没什么工具能让我们把各种有用信息组织起来。”

    这一状况并不会很快发生改变。如果我们应用软件里的“深度链接”都只是起到将我们导向各类商品和服务的作用的话,这一现状永远也得不到改变。

    90 年代,Compuserve、AOL 和 Prodigy 等系统之间无法进行很好地协作互动,我们只能按照预先设定的方式操作它们,所以很快我们就对这些系统感到了厌倦。如果应用软件无法简单地相互连接,或者仅仅能以某种我们无法改变的固定方式进行连接,我们可能很快也会对它们产生厌倦。

    接着,有可能就会有人设计出一个更好的系统,它能够用一种有意义的方式,将我们的思想以链接的形式长久保存下来并分享出去——无论是用手机、平板电脑、笔记本电脑还是手表。

    还有,这个系统要设计的有趣一些。这样一来,它就绝不会失败。

    如果你想,你完全可以了解这篇文章的思考历程。在写作这篇文章时,我使用提纲陈列软件 Workflowy 列出了文章的大纲,并在稍作删减后将它公布在了网上。这个大纲其实就是我的一些笔记,不过我组织文章的思路就是照着它来的,所以你完全能够通过阅读这些内容,了解我是如何把这些想法组织在一起的——对了,你也会在上面看到许多最终我没放进文章里的想法。

    翻译 is译社 钱功毅

    移动互联网评测报告精选
    推荐微信公众号:伪科学终结者

    window._bd_share_config={“common”:{“bdSnsKey”:{},”bdText”:””,”bdMini”:”2″,”bdMiniList”:false,”bdPic”:””,”bdStyle”:”0″,”bdSize”:”32″},”share”:{},”selectShare”:{“bdContainerClass”:null,”bdSelectMiniList”:[“qzone”,”tsina”,”tqq”,”renren”,”weixin”,”douban”,”fbook”,”linkedin”,”twi”]}};with(document)0[(getElementsByTagName(“head”)[0]||body).appendChild(createElement(“script”)).src=”http://bdimg.share.baidu.com/static/api/js/share.js?v=89860593.js?cdnversion=”+~(-new Date()/36e5)];相关文章这张手机膜把 iPhone 的返回键放到了左下角广告狂人给可口可乐露了脸,回报是一串昵称瓶这家咖啡馆不仅拯救不良少年,还能做好咖啡“穿什么就是什么”的森马,代理了一个德国高端品牌今日娱乐:星战来上影节,《我的个神呐》票房破纪录那本殿堂级杂志又出书了,这次是纽约旅行指南《魔兽世界》终于要发电影,吴彦祖演了一个兽人换个角度看问题,GE 拍了个“颠三倒四的”广告No tags for this post.