Links and Sources Confusion

[stewartkonrad]

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?

[Lysis]

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.

[stewartkonrad]

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.