Talk:Deep linking

The very definition

consists of using a hyperlink that links to a specific, generally searchable or indexed, piece of web content on a website (e.g. http://example.com/path/page), rather than the home page (e.g. http://example.com/).

Isn't it supposed to mean a link to a specific fragment identifier (e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking#Example) as opposed to a page as a whole (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking) ?? The example given seems to support that definition. Teo8976 (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No self-reference

I removed the following paragraph:

"Examples of deep linking to maps created on the fly can be found at the article Oakland, Illinois. The web addresses contain all the parameters of the maps. Sometimes this is not possible because a cache area (in this case, a shared script that generates an image map) is used to create the desired map through zooming and shifting, and there is no web address that directly gives the resulting map."

See Wikipedia:Avoid_self-references. Also, the Oakland, Illinois article could be modified in the future, in which case it would no longer be relevant. Ironically, this is one of the dangers of deep linking..... UnHoly 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

It would be nice if this could be tidied up with references. At the moment it reads like "it's good, no it's bad, no it's good, no it's bad". Lots of weasel words and unattributed "critics" too. Should be merged with inline linking and direct linking anyway. Stevage 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep linking doesn't seem to be the same thing as inline linking, as I understand it. A deep link is just a hyperlink, whereas an inline link causes the content of one page to load onto a different one. They're somewhat different, in this respect. --Fastfission 03:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, so there's "inline"/"hot" linking where you cause content to appear in your site, and then just "deep"/"direct" linking where it's just a normal A HREF type link? Stevage 09:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fission, deep linking and inline linking aren't the same and shouldn't be merged. I do agree with the merging of inline and direct linking, though. 69.47.27.193 01If it is easy to do so :07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I refractored it some. (Narkstraws 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deep/Direct vs. Inline/Hot linking: I agree with Fastfission that there is an important distinction here that needs to be explained. Most of the advantages to "deep linking" are from direct linking where as (I think) most of the court cases cited are related to inline/hot linking. But I agree with Stevage in that I think the best way to accomplish this would be to merge the three articles: deep linking, inline linking / direct linking.

I'm starting an official merger proposal based on overlap.

I think inline linking / direct linking page should be merged into deep linking with major sections devoted to "Direct Deep Linking" and "Inline Deep Linking".

TSayles 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's the following for a new page outline? TSayles 21:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of Deep Linking
direct linking to specific content

Example: Wikipedia

restricting direct linking

Example: Wall Street Journal

inline linking to display content

to aggregate content

Example: Flickr, YouTube, Digg

to allocate resources

multiple servers

Example: Yahoo & SlashDot

bandwidth theft

Legal Status

India

US, Texas

EU, Denmark

As a new (and initially confused) visitor to SAM Technology page (and the other), I think that TSayles's idea is beautiful!

But I should add a couple of points:

The old version of Direct Linking, although technical, should also be considered as a source of information and wording for any major rewrite.
That material suggests that "direct linking" does not contrast with image linking as the outline above suggests (so those headers need a different name —perhaps with reference to the HTML <a> tag?).

—Toby Bartels 19:35, August 21, 2007

Merge inline linking / direct linking into this article?

Merge, per cleanup discussion above.TSayles 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't merge the inline linking article with this one. They're completely different things in my opinion. Scott Carpenter 02:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. As far as I know, deep linking usually refers to making a text link to a 'deep' page on another website, whereas inline or 'hot' linking usually refers to embedding media served off-site. Seems to me that they are different concepts, and they certainly bring up entirely different sets of concerns. -Fadookie ^Talk 10:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. : they are different things, with -by the wat- different legal affirs. There is eveen too much mess in the usage of those terms (they are sometime used in the wrong way). Merging the two article may increase the mess. --ChemicalBit 15:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. I mirror Fadookie's sentiment that they are very different content. ---- Bwagstaff (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I also think that Direct linking , redirect to Inline linking at the moemnt, should redirect to this article (Deep linking) instead: a direct link is a link that is usually 'deep', so it's not related with embedding media served off-site (Inline linking) --ChemicalBit (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. To me, these are also two completly different tasks as well. And both articles are also long enough already, merging them would make it only more confusing. --Dietmar Lettau (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. I sign under Fadookie's statement: they are not the same. And I add some more... Deep linking only risks messing up usability, whereas hotlinking is using someone else's bandwidth (and likely his/her rights) for our own profit, with no profit for the one you leech from. From my point of view, deep linking is, at most, unfriendly, while hotlinking/inline-linking is unethical (and, most of the times {citation needed :P}, ilegal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakferion (talk • contribs) 11:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to wikipedia, so please forgive my mistakes. I always understood the term "deep linking" to specifically refer to linking into a deep state of a client side application that might be running on a single page - eg, not a kind of hyperlink covered by existing "hyperlinking" standards. In fact, the kind of deep links for that purpose that History Keeper and SWFAddress enable for Flash and Javascript apps, are sort of abusing the hash portion of the url (file.html#hash) to achieve a workable form of deep linking (deep links created by those tools, don't conform to the anchor standard, since anchors don't exist in most cases for the client generated deep links - you can see this by testing a SWFAddress or History Keeper enabled website in the w3c link checker). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Touvan (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deep-linking to Wikipedia

I wonder, if deep-linking to Wikipedia articles would be okay? Pibwl ←« 23:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, certainly!

'Deep-linking' to the same page

The example states that "This link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking is an example of a deep link.", but that link links to the same page, when "Deep linking, on the World Wide Web, is making a hyperlink that points to a specific page or image on another website". Also, this seems a lot like 'hotlinking' to me. Can someone expand upon these areas please? -- 220.245.127.197 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the opening paragraph should have the word "another" replaced with "a". You can deep link to the same web site, as given in a wikipeida example immediately below the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.176.2 (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Newspapers Ireland want license for deep linking

Not quite sure where to add it, but another example of an organization protesting deep linking is happening in Ireland now. http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0104/20133987-are-newspapers-trying-to-destroy-the-web/ They are actually saying it is against copyright/law to deep link but when asked by solicitors to explain where, they don't respond.83.70.170.48 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Linking Plus Search, Linking into PDFs and to Text Marks

Excuse me for asking here: Is there a way to deep link to a specific text string within the target page? To PDF files you can deep link to a certain page by adding #page=nn (has that been mentioned here? You might want to.). But I’m looking for a way to send the reader directly to a quote within a longer text, that has not been marked with a HTML-nametag a name= (also not mentioned here), eg. …en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_linking#Usage?find="Sometimes". The browser would have to interpret this find, before displaying the goal page. — Fritz Jörn (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either put in an a name tag if it's in HTML or if it's in WP, make a new subsection above it on some ground, so that WP will let you use a # tag based on the subsection name. For example, "Discussion of deep links to texts" or the like. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas case on linking

I think the short par. on SFX Motor Sports Inc., v. Davis should be deleted. The case is unreported officially and it is contrary to the great weight of authority. If nobody objects, I will delete in at the end of August. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker bot Javadzandi1 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hack Javadzandi1 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javadzandi1 Javadzandi1 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O0nline Javadzandi1 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deep linking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deep linking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legend section

Just wanted to prompt a discussion here. The Legend section is entirely wrong afaik.

Robot.txt has very little to do with indexing. Search engines (such as Google) state explicitly that including a page in robots.txt will not exclude it from search results. All it does is reduce the amount of data it can find at the link. (So it can't get the Open Graph tags, description, etc.)

Even if robot.txt was used not to block indexing of the page itself, but to prevent indexing of deep links that are only referenced by this one page, that wouldn't achieve the desired result. If a user posts one of the deep links on a forum outside the site, search engines will find and index it anyway.

Warning: Don't use a robots.txt file as a means to hide your web pages (including PDFs and other text-based formats supported by Google) from Google search results.
If other pages point to your page with descriptive text, Google could still index the URL without visiting the page. If you want to block your page from search results, use another method such as password protection or noindex.
If your web page is blocked with a robots.txt file, its URL can still appear in search results, but the search result will not have a description.
— https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/robots/intro#what-is-a-robots.txt-file-used-for

The robots <meta> tag and robots.txt file serve different purposes: robots.txt controls the crawling of pages, and does not affect indexing or other behavior controlled by robots meta. A page that can't be crawled may still be indexed if it is referenced by another document.
— https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/HTML/Element/meta/name#other_metadata_names

I think this section should be removed, especially as it includes sentences with citation needed that can't be true because they don't make sense. Sethiiii (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]