Please add some context if you post a link. I'll never click on a naked link, and adding "Look at this!" will not help. It's a tactic used by scammers and linkbait, so by instinct I'm not going to click on them, even if they look reliable.
Just give me a few descriptive words. Or even just one.
@readsteven descriptive links are also important for accessibility
"If you only read one story today..."
"The last thing you'll ever need to read on..."
"In case you missed this..."
I never, ever read these.
Every single one I'm thinking of is a YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, (etc) link. (My client does not reliably load Open Graph previews.)
I'm still not going to click on a naked link, and if that's how articles federate, maybe rethink the utility of linking them to Mastodon.
@mike The Fine Art of Sufficient Microcontent is a useful notion to keep in mind.
I try to post title, pull quote, URL, and hashtags, generally.
As here, from earlier today:
@mike And by supplying bare links, plus text, you can proof against that, as well as preserving most utility in hardcopy or screenshots.
It's a minimum viable format.
Arguments as to why, in the fourth decade of the Web, this remains necessary are left unvoiced.
@mike I'm well aware of that fact and never claimed it was.
The point I'm making is that cross-system communications, such as pidgin languages, both borrow from multiple sources AND stick to a minimum viable common standard. Again, the problem of preserving hypertext references in printed or static output being a prime example.
Naked URLs WITH inline context and search cues (hashtags) is that MVCS, and long predates Mastodon or the Fediverse.
@mike NB: I'll occasionally apply "mastodon" as a synecdoche for "Fediverse", much as "Hollywood", "Wall Street", "Milan", "Silicon Valley", "Detroit", and "Shenzen" subsume their corresponding industries.
Language is symbolic.
Those insisting on literal interpretations, tedious.
Fabricating pedantically literal strawbeings all the more so.
@readsteven I personnaly discard naked link.
They looks to me as “someone tossing a book to my face with rage”.
@readsteven I understand but Mastodon grabs oembed information from the link and present them in toot detail, doesn't it?
@jpfox I beleive it’s up to the client to find and parse Open Graph info. I almost never see it on the Mastodon web interface, and it can be hit-or-miss on the mobile app that I use. (And many sites don’t have og information at all.)
@readsteven on web interface, if you select the toot, you have oembedded info in right column. Same thing in most masto apps.
And I confirm that info are grabbed by the server, not the client
@jpfox Cool. I don’t want to interact with naked links.
@readsteven as said in my first reply, I understand, it was just tips if needed 🙂
@mike Dude, don't be a dick.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!