Constant Content

Hi everyone! I'm new to the forum, but I've been lurking and learning from everyone here for a while, and I really appreciate the discussion.

I know it's been covered a few times before, but I'm still having a little trouble understanding exactly what CC editors expect with links and sources. My impression is that most CC writers just drop a link in brackets (with the http://www. removed) so that buyers can then put the link into place. You know, something like, "After all, 98% of red squirrels live in ceilings, (fakelink.com/fakesublink/fakeredsquirrelfacts.html) causing constant noise and headaches for homeowners."

However, I recently had an article rejected because I didn't name the source in text using something like, "according to..." or, "as reported by..." or, "recent research from..." But I've done many other articles where just dropping a link has been fine, and even CC's own blog uses source links this way. So, basically, do you think I should just chalk this up to one rouge editor, and continue as normal? Are there times when I should name the source in text, and other times when just dropping a link is fine?

Well this is old, but editors never cease to keep confusing me. I always thought they hated the "according to.." thing. Anyway, I think you got a rogue editor because I do stuff like that and it's supposedly fine.

Thanks for the reply Lysis! You generally seem to know what's up around here.

This did make me think about sources more carefully. Instead of just leaving a link, I've been fully incorporating good sources into the text more. You know, something like, "In a 2006 study, (academicjournal.org/2006study) biologists at the University of London found that three in ten pigs fly, raising the obvious question: are we in the end times?" Not all that creative I know, and I don't think it's appropriate for every style of article, but it can work well in the right place.