[wp-hackers] Re: Blogroll, Bookmarks, Links?

[Jairus Pryor]

On 6/21/07, Marci O'Daffer <marci at odaffer.net> wrote:
> Wordpress is an incredible blogging platform. Best ever. But we can't forget
> that Wordpress is being used extensively as a CMS because it's incredibly
> good at that too.

> I know the "lowest common denominator" concept is a little ugly sounding,
> but as someone said, "Links" is short (good for a tab), and everyone knows
> what it means. "Bookmarks" sounds like something personal to me: MY
> bookmarks, sites I personally want to come back to....whereas everyone who
> has any internet experience knows that "Links" take you to OTHER sites and
> you put Links on your site to help OTHER people find what they are looking
> for.  Bookmarks is just as bloggish as Blogroll (well, almost...) whereas
> Links has a more universal meaning.

I don't agree that Bookmarks is bloggish at all. I'm using WP as a
CMS, and 'bookmarks' makes much more sense in the context of how I'm
using it than Links does. We have links on every page. They're all
different. Bookmarks are more universal, and can be called anywhere.

Bookmarks may seem more personal, but I don't see that as a strike
against them. As you said, they are YOUR bookmarks, sites you want to
personally come back to. That's what makes them special, and why they
warrant their own subsystem in WP. Links are just directions to other
sites, without any other meaning attached to them.

There's also the fact that 'links' is a term already in use in WP. If
we end up using 'links' rather than bookmarks, we're going to have to
rename the 'insert link' button in the editor, otherwise we're going
to confuse a lot of novices who have dutifully put all their links
into the 'link' section, and are now trying to add them to their posts
by clicking on the 'link' icon.

Jairus