When I click on a post and there is only a link,

[roody]

I rarely, if ever, go further. I find it irritating. Does anyone else do this? Please at least post a few lines to pique my interest.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. You're not alone

I hate that crap too. Especially for websites I refuse to visit knowingly, like HuffPo the tabloid.

[BlueJazz]

12. HuffPo has to be one of the slowest damn sites I've ever seen. Sucks!

[GoneFishin]

22. Yep. Whatever they are doing it sucks. If I see that the link leads there I back right out.

It is too danggum slow.

[ErikJ]

30. I heard Breitbart made it for them.

Knowing it would be so slow it would reduce traffic I'd bet.

[randys1]

2. Could be linking to an unhealthy site also...virus, etc. ALWAYS put

something in body

[Nictuku]

3. Me too!

A general idea of what the link is about would be helpful.

On other sites, I do the same thing if I have to watch a video. If there is some text about the video content, and it is something I'd be interested in, I'll click on the video, otherwise, I usually don't.

[jberryhill]

7. Yep

"Hey go look at this!"

Why?

[brer cat]

14. I feel the same way about people

who post a link to another DU thread without giving any context, just "go read this thread", etc. If it is important enough to make a new OP, then say SOMETHING about it.

[jberryhill]

16. See post #5

I don't know if there is some quick way to do that without scrolling around pointlessly.

[Codeine]

4. It's weak sauce for sure.

Many forums require posters to add some kind of content or at least quote something from the link; I think DU would do well to adopt that stance.

[pinboy3niner]

5. I replied to a thread today that it would help to post an article excerpt

That's often enough to get the gist without need to go to the link.

[MineralMan]

6. Words are free on DU.

People should use some in their posts.

[City Lights]

8. Same here. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

9. click bait

best guess... paid op

[TexasProgresive]

10. There has to be a reason

I don't ever click on blind links.

[scarletwoman]

11. If the poster can't be bothered to include an excerpt, I can't be bothered to click on the link.

I just close the post and move on to a different post.

[procon]

13. My thoughts exactly!

I am especially wary of links that don't point to a recognizable domain.

[Shandris]

15. I automatically consider any link without accompanying text or an archive.today link...

...an attempt to gin up click advertising and since I despise advertising in all forms, I fulfill my prime directive and do not click.

Shandris, fighting the power .009 cents at a time!

[pinboy3niner]

18. Oh yeah?

Well, there's a great rebuttal for that. Check this out!:
http://www.blindlink!.com

[jeff47]

23. Too many words.

http://www.click-this-so-I-get-some-ad-views.com

[Flying Squirrel]

37. Nothing happened for me at that link

Try this one instead...

[smirkymonkey]

43. Totally off topic, but I just love his voice.

[Polly Hennessey]

19. I agree

it is irritating and too much trouble.

[winter is coming]

20. Same here.

And it's particularly stupid to say, "go look at what's on X," when what's on X could change at any time.

If it's not worth your time to write a one-sentence summary of what's at the link, it's not worth my time to follow it.

[Logical]

21. Meta

[left-of-center2012]

24. Click on this link !

[lunatica]

25. I ignore it too. If you can't at least tell me why I should click on it, then forget it

I find it really pompous and disrespectful when anyone does that.

[smirkymonkey]

44. So do I, one of my biggest pet peeves at DU.

[DesertFlower]

26. i ignore it. nt

[Duckhunter935]

27. I feel the same way

[Old Codger]

28. That and

Nothing but a video with no warning in the title, immediately leave never watch or click on link...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. I posted a link earlier but it was to a NYT article and the title was in the link.

[liberal N proud]

31. The title has to be really compelling for me to click.

If you don't care enough to give a short synopsis or excerpt, forget it.

[OnlinePoker]

32. I'll do it if the link is added info about the subject being discussed.

Normally, what I say in the title is sufficient to explain the link. I never do it on posts that I start.

[Liberal_in_LA]

33. sometimes I skip it. It is a bit annoying

[thesquanderer]

34. Yup. Same with posts that are nothing but a video.

Give me some idea what the video says and why it is worth watching. Videos can be such time sucks. Plus I'm often someplace where I don't want to have the computer start making noise by playing a video.

[catrose]

35. Me too n/t

[Joe Shlabotnik]

36. the nerve of some people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027183756

[mahina]

38. Me neither. I am concerned that there's a virus on the other end.

I will say the post count and history of the poster factors into my process a bit too.

[hobbit709]

39. Depends on the poster.

If it's someone that been around a while and not an obvious troll I'll at least look to see where the link leads.
If it's someone that just signed on that day and has about 4 posts, I don't.
I've never had a problem with any links on posts from DU

[Phentex]

40. I skip it...

I want to have some idea where the link goes or what it's about. Often the title in the link is bogus.

[steve2470]

41. I admit to doing that on very very rare occasions, when I feel really lazy

I did it recently with the hunk story. I figured if anyone really cared about the hunk, they wouldn't mind clicking the link to ABC News. Of course, my subject line always carries the original headline of the story, which gives you a good clue about the link. Oh well.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

42. Extremely irritating! If you do that, please stop it! nt

[betsuni]

45. What really bugs me is when someone posts something like:

"Can you believe what so-and-so said today?" and that's it. Or how so-and-so is on TV right now. Or a cryptic comment about something that happened today without saying what. No details. How are we supposed to know?

[smirkymonkey]

46. Arrghhh! That is so annoying!