Also, consider that scanning isn’t intrinsically negative behavior it is the absence of deep thinking, and focus, that is negative. Computers (not just links) encourage a person to simply not think deeply. When you first purchase a book, you do scan it before just cracking it open, right? Many people do this, that’s how we determine the worth of a piece of information. The problem is that people are no longer doing step #2, which is to read deeply and thoughtfully the content which they have scanned.

Also try to remember that in 1997 we all used those god-awful CRT monitors that were downright painful to look at for any long period of time. I’d be in a hurry to scan through an article if my eyes were in pain as well.

However, the search engine argument is valid. Whether you like it or not links are the way that search engines assign trust and authority. I think the link graph is broken but there are no viable alternatives at this point. Linking out to relevant sites and documents establishes your topical niche and helps search engines to match queries to your content.

As for the scanning issue. Look at the date on the initial research. 1997. At that time there was just one thing going on on your computer. And scanning behavior is not just limited to the online world. So … perhaps scanning has increased with the number of tabs open and applications, but I still believe contextual links serve a substantial communication purpose.

Consider this: A book is just a book, but a web page is probably one of 15-20 things you have going on on your computer right this moment. Not including audio/visual elements like music, blinking icons, notifications, etc., If you sat there with your head phones on, 6 books sprawled out in front of you, a paper you’re working on off to your right, and holding a conversation simultaneously.. you’d be skimming those books too.