3

If I want to refer to link (on internet, computed documents etc.), for example, when I want to send someone to read something that the link in the PDF that I gave him, links to it. Then what is the correct way or the most common way to refer to it?

My options now are: open the link, check the link, see the link. Maybe you have different alternatives, but anyway I would like to know the common one/s.

N.b. in my native language we say "enter the link".

6

You can say:

Have a look at this link:

Take a look at this link:

Check out this link:

I do not recommend simply saying "Check this link.". I sometimes read this written by a non-native speaker in a forum response. It sounds like you want someone to check the link for something -- maybe you want them to check it to see whether it works, or to check it to look for something. If you say "check out this link", it's a way to tell someone to generally look at it, and it sounds casual, so it doesn't sound rude in the way that "look at this link" may sound if you don't know someone very well.

Also, you can refer to the link without telling your friend to look at it:

Here's a link for an example: BLABLABLABLABLALINKLINKLINK

You can also embed the link.

This link is an example of that.

  • 3
    In case the link will be public—say, on a website like this one, as opposed to in an email—please refrain from using "This link" or "Click here" or "Link" as the link text. It makes it more difficult for people who use screen readers to identify the target. For instance, instead of "This link shows an example of the McGurk effect," prefer "Here is an example of the McGurk effect." When the screenreader reads the former, there will be no context, but the latter provides all the context that is required to understand the link. – wchargin Apr 4 '17 at 21:23
  • Thank you. What do you think about "follow the link"? – Judicious Allure Apr 5 '17 at 21:09
  • It sounds most natural in a formal setting, like in a document. You can use it with a friend but in my opinion it sounds a bit formal in that context. These are subtle differences. In general, it's fine to use it. – Epanoui Apr 6 '17 at 18:35
4

I'd go with: follow the link, because you want them to see the actual target which the link points to, rather than the link itself.

Out of context, the ngram data shows see the link as more commonly used.

  • 1
    Unfortunately, that Ngram data doesn't say much about this particular question. It's full of hits such as: I've been able to see the link between the way I related as a kid to the way I relate now; we once again see the link to his concept of sincerity; learn to see the link between insurance and asset protection as an essential part of your business; look for educators who are lifelong learners and who see the link between their own learning and the learning of others; see the link between climate change and the way in which cities grow, etc. – J.R. Apr 4 '17 at 19:13
  • 1
    Also, if you add "enter", "click", and "visit", and wildcard the article, you'll get different results that show "click * link" has twice as many references as "see * link". – shoover Apr 4 '17 at 21:36
2

Given a link, say http://ell.stackexchange.com, I would say:

  • Click on the link to open it
  • Do you see the link?
  • (Once you click the link) Follow the link (to see what webpage it takes you to)

I wouldn't really say "check the link" in any context that I can think of.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.