Valid Rejection?

[J. A. Young]

I'm not miffed...I've been rejected before However, I was rejected for what is more or less a commonplace for me so I thought I'd share and try to get more information about how to best handle this topic because for me, it isn't going away...

I used a link in an article and the article was rejected for this reason. The link was not live--just placed in parenthesis to indicate source. Whenever I do use live links I state clearly in the short summary that client has requested them--and I have one ongoing client that insists upon them. Here is what I found in a CC blog:

"If you must cite websites, drop the http://www. prefix from the web address"

I generally do that, but I like to embed the source right in the paragraph it pertains to...a resource page is bound to be clunky and confusing particularly if there are several sources. Still, I thought we could all benefit from being on the same page and discussing how best to handle these links to information--which really MUST be there or the journalism value is just tanked needlessly. We've got to give credit and using reputable sources only strengthens our piece when we're writing about weighty topics.

Any thoughts? I immediately thought new editor--that's the kind of thing that always happens when we've gotten someone new before, but I could be wrong--it could be ED!...it's just that I've included the non-live link addresses (minus the www) a hundred times before with no problem. Thanks for any feedback!

[csjwilkinson]

I got rejected for putting periods in my titles. I was a bit confused, so I went back to make sure that I still had my sanity. Sure enough most of my articles had periods in their titles. I thought it might be a new editor too. For the a quiet life I removed the period and carried on. Your case seems a bit more complex though. I'd say that if you need a web address you should keep www. and all after. Don't take my word for it though.

[Kaytee]

if you need a web address you should keep www. and all after. Don't take my word for it though.

CC's guidelines have long stated, very clearly, that links must have the "www." removed.

The question of whether to embed sources or not depends on the piece, I think. There are times when the source is directly relevant, and then including the link in the main body makes sense. On other occasions though, where the source is just supporting a point, it doesn't feel as necessary and citing the name of the person/organisation you've referenced is enough. Then listing your source for further information at the end is less clunky than a whole article full of embedded links.

It would be different, of course, if our articles were html coded so that our references linked directly to our sources without the need for visible website addresses within the text. Considering the vast majority of CC's customers buy content for a digital medium, that may one day be the case.

[SJHillman]

One problem with removing the www is that "example.com" and "www.example.com" are not the same thing and could very well go to two different websites, although that is uncommon. However, it is fairly common for webservers to be poorly configured and not know what to do with just "example.com", so they will return an error unless you put "www.example.com". The www is just a commonly used subdomain for web traffic, no different than "ftp.example.com" or "mail.example.com". Likewise, it's becoming more common for sites to use "ww2.example.com" or "www2.example.com" or something different altogether.

It's still a good idea to drop the "http://" because 1) it establishes what protocol use use and has nothing to do with the address and 2) this is what most word processors use to automatically create hyperlinks in documents.

[jak]

One way round this might be not to name the website, but refer to it as here;

'according to their website, XYZ believe that......' or 'on his website, A N Other states that.....' Would that help?

[J. A. Young]

Jak, that's a really good idea and very simple. I will probably do that when mentioning the link isn't essential. Thanks!