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).
This is an execution problem on how the links are structured.
CrunchBase, no matter how you look at it, is a valuable resource for our industry and the most readers of TechCrunch.
Being compared to The New York Times is unfair, and not apples to apples.
I do agree, when a company is referred to in an article on TC, the editor needs to structure the sentence and reference based on how he/she intends executing the destination for the link.
If TC specifically references to previous coverage of a company, as a reader I expect to click-thru to the previous article written by TC on that company.
If TC references a company name with no specific intention, then I expect to click-thru to the company site (www.xyz-company.com).
If TC specifically references company profile data on CrunchBase, then I expect to click-thru to the CB profile on that company.
There is a single case where CB is the best option. When the company referenced, has no web site!
Otherwise, I enjoy the option of the CB widget at the bottom of every well written article on TC.
TC, growing empire or not, serves a purpose and does so for FREE.
Sorry guys, but as much as I love TechCrunch, Tim’s right. I’ve stopped clicking on ANY links from TechCrunch because I’m so sick of being taken to CrunchBase. While CrunchBase is a wealth of information, it is not what I expect when I’m clicking on a company name in an article, and it’s maddening.
The simple answer, of course is to link the company name to the company website, and then provide a CrunchBase link afterwords in parens.
Unless, of course, you’re trying to *intentionally* deceive your readership in the name of higher click rates….
I find it pretty annoying that the most obvious links that seem like they should be linking to a company’s homepage take me to crunchbase.
It puts a bad taste in my mouth about tech crunch and crunchbase in general and it seems like many other people agree with me here.
I really hate it when your logos link to Crunchbase. I agree with Tim. Your self linking sucks. And no Crunchbase is not more valuable than linking to the company, you’re obviously biased since it’s your product. Don’t believe the hype.
Someone call the internet police! Two geeks are haggling over how to start a quasi-code enforcement board for linking rules.
Hey, Tim. As long as you are critiquing TechCrunch, could we also get a breakdown of W3C standards as they apply to TechCrunch vs. The New York Times. Maybe a “white paper” on their various design issues.
I wonder if T/C uses proper title tags, too. We should definitely get a whole article about that next. “Title Tags and why T/C is the Master of Them when compared to Newsweek and Time”.
Sadly, the reality of this useless piece of self-absorbed fluff is my favorite song (sung to the opening salvo of Beethoven’s Fifth)… “Nobody cares… Nobody cares!”
Get a life, Erick and Tim.
Ditto.
I found linking to the company profile very useful. I guess it depends on who is reading the article. Tim is probably just reads occassionally. And I am a regular reader of techcrunch, so I am familar with most web sites techcrunch talks about, but don’t remember all their company profiles, ie when they were founded, VC amount…
Just to refer to our current policy as of October 2007: http://www.tech...-at-crunchbase/
From the link:
“We started linking to CrunchBase often in our posts. This tends to drive some readers absolutely nuts because they want to go to the company, not CrunchBase, when they click a link. As of today that policy is being discontinued.”
So then why are you still linking to Crunchbase outside of the widget if that is against your “policy”?
Regardless, just make the link destination obvious, it’s not that hard.
I agree with Tim, CB links in the posts are incredibly frustrating.
The footer is fine.
I too agree with Tim.
slow news day
Clearly, Tim O’Reilly is much smarter than these TechCrunch dudes who care more about making money by increasing pageviews than providing a better user experience for their readers. And I say that having known Tim for many years. He was pioneering tech books and tech info for years while Mike “Holier Than Thou” Arrington made his living as a slimy lawyer.
Agree with Sean above. Currently it is not clear. I find myself wanting to link to the actual site mentioned in a TC article and often do not know how to do so. I usually just type in the url. I generally have no interests in info on Crunchbase. Be better if it was clearer, and one could easily see the actual site if they wanted.
I would actually prefer clicking on a logo bring me to that websites homepage. It’s what we are all used to. And the first mention can go to crunchbase if you wish.
Agreed–too much linking to Crunchbase. Though, to be fair, Crunchbase has some cool stuff, but I like when a snippet of the Crunchbase entry is appended to the end of the article.
Company names and logos should totally link outward to that company’s website
I agree with Tim. Crunchbase links are annoying… and it’s kind of deceptive to highlight a company’s name and link somewhere else. Especially when it’s a self-serving link to a self-serving site you’re trying to drive traffic to.
Why not just create a crunchbase logo or something or additional link? Afraid people won’t click? Being “too busy” to fix links is a weak excuse. If the subject of one of your stories gave you that sort of response in this sort of situation, you’d laugh at them… wouldn’t you?
It’s great to have the forum for everyone to complain about this one, thanks for posting the story!
Trackbacks disabled for this post?
http://www.jonn...nchbase-revolt/
Thanks Tim
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.
Tim,
You are right to point out the problem. In part I am just giving you a hard time because you gave me an opening.
But there is a qualitative (and quantitative) difference between our self-linking and the NYT’s. The NYT links to itself a lot more than we do (in both percentage and absolute terms) and does so in an automated fashion. Every link on TechCrunch is put there by the writer because he believes it is adding to the post. I think it’s important to keep that in mind.
CrunchBase is useful and I couldn’t care less whether TC generates self traffic or not. I would however like to see a consistent and easy way to link out to a mentioned site. Like link the company logo to their own site (makes more sense that way) and put a CrunchBase logo next to it on every story. If you’re too busy to do it yourselves, get some interns in India.
What I do think is lame that Crunchbase adds nofollow’s in hotlinks to the described company’s URL. If Crunchbase believes the URL is interesting enough to a reader to make it clickable, why would you insist on telling Google to ignore it?
It’s a straight up SEO play to reduce bleeding off google juice. Does Techcrunch really need to be that greedy to deny some page rank support to the very same companies that they make their revenue off of?
Good point Ted. The fact that they don’t even have proper (link juice giving) outbound links to the companies they profile is very telling.
I’m sorry but that is total excrement. ‘Nofollow’ is meant to prevent spam in untrusted (ie. user contributed) content like comments.
Unimpressed.
Do you honestly feel that the Crunchbase page for Mint.com is MORE VALUABLE TO READERS THAN the mint.com homepage?
I see the value of linking to Crunchbase, but I usually click that link just to then go to the actual company homepage and not to read your Crunchbase abstract.
Your hyperlinks in TC posts should go to the actual company homepage. You should link to Crunchbase at the end of each post.
It’s not an issue of consistency, it’s an issue of mystery meat navigation. It’s the same annoyance that occurs when you click a link thinking it will take you somewhere and instead your browser chokes because the link was pointed at a 50mb PDF.
If there was some indication of where the link was going, the user can make decisions about whether that link is the one they want to click. The key is allowing users options and enough info to let them make appropriate decisions about their browsing activities. That could be as simple as putting “[CB]” or “(CB)” at the end of any links that go to Crunchbase instead of the company’s website.
I’m glad someone with a voice finally said it.
The worst part is that you have no uniform post format that I can base my behavior around. The format that is readily recognizable is a) the text content with a link in the first couple sentences b) the image is also a link. Sometimes the text link is CB, sometimes the image is CB, sometimes neither go to CB. We never know.
My opinion is, now that you have your CB widget on every entry, don’t link to CB at all in the post. If I want it, I know where to find it – right there at the bottom where it should be.
I think Tim O’Reilly shouldn’t complain about another site’s linking strategy. Google is smart enough to know if any link is worth anything or not.
If TechCrunch was the only site to be linking to CrunchBase, Google would notice, and discount the links. But, it’s fairly obvious that other people link to CrunchBase as well. Hence, the high ranking is what it is. And that’s nobody’s else’s business.
My own personal experience, whenever it links to crunchbase and not the actual domain, i usually just go to the address bar and type in the domain myself, which tends to almost always be [whatever the name is].com. Although I do think crunchbase is useful, and agree it’s probably better to just have it at the bottom or top of the article depending on how many crunchbase widgets are getting posted in relation to the article.
Too many times I have been taken to crunchbase thinking I would be visiting the actual company being profiled. Then I need to find another link and click through to the company. I think Tim’s comments were pretty well on target.
But you should at least stop linking to search pages of Techcrunch. If you really want to link to searches, why not to Google SERPs.
you know, luckily, in our modern browsers we have a search bar to the upper right and i can just (get ready for the shocker here) enter in the company’s name and do my OWN research and usually i’ll find the site (it’s most likely the top result, thanks google!). jeez, what am i internet handicapped?
Totally agree .. linking to Crunchbase instead of products themselves is just annoying ..
Agree with most of the comments: keep the crunchbase link at the bottom, and direct link to company in the body of the post, and this would be great!
“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. ”
hahaha yeah right
– its a basic SEO that the more external links you give away, the worse for your site – so its better to self-link and hope to get links from others.
I think MAJORITY of your users would like to see direct links on your blog. If you WANT to put links to crunchbase there – just put it AS WELL (but not only) – and clearly mark it as link ‘to crunchbase’ <– that would fair.
I totally agree with Tim – sorry, self linking is a bad thing
Sounds to me like Tim just wanted a bit of Techcrunch link juice for himself. What a whiny little bitch. Seriously. Rather than write fluff that helps no one except his ego, perhaps he could spend time writing proper stories that have some Merit… oh wait, sorry, forgot where he was writing for.
Seriously though, comparing crunch base to NYT search results is like comparing wikipedia to my on browser search bar. You can’t compare them. Crunchbase is a great resource, passes the tests, and is not any of the things he seems to think it is. Perhaps he just wishes he was in there with some fresh start up?
It’s rare I agree 100% with a post here on TC, but in this instance, go F yourself Tim!
I loved this part
“founder of O’Reilly Media and a supporter of the free software and open source movements.”
How many books on from O’Reilly Media are free???
lol
It is fairly annoying Mike.
lol at update: “Tom” O’Reilly
I don’t mind the CB links at all and find it useful. The CB entry always provides a link to the company’s site, so I really don’t see it as a problem. Really we are splitting hairs here….but that’s no surprise.
Upon reading this post, I just had to link to CrunchBase and post about it (despite the added risk of putting my own beta website on the proverbial TechCrunch map when it is not at all ready for such scrutiny). Call me… Tim.
You are as bad as the NYT. Stop trying to make Crunchbase happen. It’s gash.
You’re definitely horrid, EVIL people!
I think a logo is the *last* thing that you should link to CrunchBase. I’m always clicking on logos on your site expecting them to take me to their website, and find it absolutely infuriating when they dump me in CrunchBase.
Not convinced. Link less, and at the links, have a explicit word indicating is a link to Crunchbase. I do want to be surprised when I click a link named “FriendFeed” and arrive at Crunchbase.
Thank you for your blood good content.
What Tim said is what I wanted to say for a long time. It’s so frustrating every time I want to see a new website, what I got is actually your useless database page.
Techcrunch is putting on more and more ADs for themselves and their sponsors and fewer real articles worth reading. It’s a pity!
The Times may do a poorer job of linking, but they do a better job of reporting.
Why doesn’t crunchbase help ‘little’ sites like http://www.clim...angetriage.net?
Johnnie
Erick, I noticed your comment about not linking because you’re pressed for time. I’ve got a Wordpress plugin that could help you guys out. You set up a keyword to link to a given destination, and then it always links there when it shows up in a post. Or you can set it to just link the first time, or first X number of times.
You can also do this in batches, to save further time, with a unique CSV upload feature that none of the similar plugins have.
In the case where you’d like to link to both Crunchbase and the business in question, you can also set things up for one keyword to link to multiple URLs. E.g. have Twitter go to Twitter.com and Crunchbase, and make it link twice in any given post. Then when you write about it, the plugin should link once to Twitter and once to CB. (It’s random though, so it may not be 50% in a given post, but will be 50% in the aggregate… haven’t tested that. You could also just make “Twitter on Crunchbase” link automatically to the Crunchbase profile.
Hope you download it and take it for a spin – it’s free! Let me know if you have any questions
. The link is from my username.