Originally Posted by Chef
Did they just drop the word "Bloggingheads" in that article with no link or explanation about what it is? As in: any moderately hip individual already knows about BHTV, and we're not going to explain it if you don't.
It is my observation that major newspapers are nearly universally horrible when it comes to linkifying their articles. Could be for any number of reasons, including one good one, but I'd say this is more likely the case than there being an expectation of familiarity with BH.tv. We still have cult status (and we like it that way! (Sorry, Bob.)).
The "good one," btw, is that a link from a major newspaper's website can provoke such a traffic spike that smaller web sites can get buried. I've seen this documented in a few cases, connected to the NYTimes. Not that it applies in this case, but it is one of the reasons why newspapers tend to avoid linking.
The others, of course, are bad (e.g., fear of visitors going away, never to return) or neutral (e.g., lack of resources to update a story when it moves from its print incarnation to its Web version). I had an interesting email exchange with the NYT's online editor about this problem of weak linkifying, and he confirmed that the old guard still fears loss of eyeballs and sees no upside to paying someone to modify the e-version of their articles.