I changed the WordPress permalink structure for this blog from “/%postname%-%post_id%” to “/%year%/%monthnum%/%postname%/”, after nearly three years with the old URLs. This is what most WordPress blogs use, and I understand the wisdom of using a trailing slash which indicates directory status with non-virtual URLs, implies the end of the URL, and is expected by most users. Including the post ID was a stupid mistake. I was copying what deviantART does in its post URLs, but the month and date are far better than a meaningless number.

This also matches what I did on my new blog, Composer’s Journey.

The hard part was redirecting all the old URLs to the new URLs. I ended up changing the core file /wp-admin/includes/post.php: where it says “posts_per_page=15″ I substituted “posts_per_page=500″. Then I opened a copy of my Manage Posts screen with the old URLs, changed permalink structures to the new URLs, opened a new tab with the Manage Post screen, changed back to the old permalinks, and started copying and pasting the permalinks into a CSV file which I imported into the Redirection plugin. I redirected the original posts and the printable version links, but I was not able to get the comment RSS feed links to redirect (got stuck in an endless loop). No one uses those, fortunately. Copying and pasting 848 URLs was no picnic.

Enjoy the new URLs!

When I think of a wiki, I think of a collection of articles that can be edited by anyone. But wikis have another core trait. If you’ve ever looked up an article on Wikipedia, you’ve noticed that practically every other word is a link to related articles in the wiki.

There are no direct links to external sites. All those are footnotes or references, appearing at the bottom of the page. But within the text, there are internal links all over the place. It’s a self-contained Internet.

I think your blog should be the same way. This isn’t reasonable until you’ve built up a good collection of content—perhaps thirty articles at least. But once you’ve done that, you should start linking to them whenever relevant. When I talk about artistic photography, I’ll link to my gallery, and when I talk about happiness, I’ll probably link to How to Be Happy. And when I talk about linking, darn it, I’ll link to The Perils of Redundant Linking. These links are redundant to people who read my whole blog from start to finish, but those people can just ignore the links. The larger majority skims two or three of my articles to take in the essential points, and for them, the links are invaluable, because they connect them with other subjects of interest. Because the links are contextual and manually added by me and me alone, they’re better and more relevant than what any search engine or group of people can offer.

I believe in subjective reality / multiple truths. Wikis are disconcerting because they try in vain to represent an objective reality by synthesizing and representing the beliefs of hundreds of people. Sometimes, it works, but within the whole wiki you always see incongruity. Certain articles read …

... continue reading

Sometimes I’ll write a post, and I’ll mention something twice. Often it’s my wonderful camera, a Canon Rebel XTi. And then I wonder: should I make the text a link twice? In the Rebel XTi case, it’s a link to Amazon.com (an evil affiliate link). Sometimes, the link will be with different text, or in an entirely different context than the first, though it goes to the same page. That could be linking to Glass Drops once while talking about night photography, and then again when discussing raindrops, in the same article.

I’ve noticed other people doing this, and I’m finding it ever more annoying. I’ve found there are two approaches to double-linking:

1. Link redundantly, because your readers will be annoyed and confused that your talking about a subject so much but not linking to it, if they missed the first link. Or do it to really get people to click your affiliate link. More commonly, readers scan your content rather than reading closely. Either they scan by default, or find your writing useless. To accommodate that group, you have to mention important stuff as many times as possible and hope it won’t be missed. Your writing for the unengaged rather than the engaged, and your putting the wrong ones first.

2. Don’t link redundantly, because you choose to cater to thorough rather than casual readers. Readers who take in every word and click every link in perfect succession. Readers who will be annoyed and confused if they find the same page twice in their tab bar after a work-out session with the scroll button. I click every link if I like what I’m reading, because I know the author will have good recommendations about the topic. And I’ve been finding it quite disconcerting when a good author is type …

... continue reading