Harvard Researchers Explain That SOPA Supporters Are Misusing Their Research To Support SOPA

Barnes & Noble Going Around Asking Everyone To Change All Links From Borders To B&N

from the really? dept

Fri, Dec 23rd 2011 3:48pm — Mike Masnick

As you probably heard, Borders went out of business recently and Barnes & Noble purchased a bunch of Borders assets around its trademarks. Still, it was a bit surprising when we received an email this week asking us to change any links we have on Techdirt that go to Borders.com to redirect to Barnesandnoble.com:

Barnes & Noble recently purchased most of the Borders trademarks and intellectual property in a recent auction. As a result of this purchase, we started transitioning the Borders.com website to Barnesandnoble.com via redirects.

We noticed that your site is currently linking to http://www.borders.com/online/store/Home , and I�d like to reach out and ask you to kindly update your links to the corresponding URLs on Barnesandnoble.com. We have redirects in place for many Borders.com pages, so you can use that to help you determine the correct landing pages on Barnesandnoble.com.

To be honest, I absolutely could not recall ever linking to Borders, but I did some digging, and found that we did so... three and a half years ago in a post about Borders.com's last ditch attempt to try to be innovative with a different kind of home page. Because of that we linked to the front page of Borders.com. For a variety of reasons, it would be stupid to change that link. In the context of the story, it wouldn't make any sense at all.

But all of this makes me wonder why Barnes & Noble is wasting their time sending emails to people like this. If it wants to redirect people, just set up some redirects. Don't expect everyone to drop everything and go change ancient links.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: history, links, revising
Companies: barnes & noble, borders

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ethan, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:00pm

Is it that hard to comprehend that they write a simple script to identify sites linking to Borders and simply emailed all such sites with a form email? Likely took an intern an afternoon to write and implement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re:
  And how hard would it be to throw together some redirect scripts and not look like morons who don't understand how things work?
  
  Is that so hard to comprehend?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    We have redirects in place for many Borders.com pages...
    
    Sounds like they're already doing what they're supposed to do and giving those with links to them a head's up. That's called being helpful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Zano, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I generally appreciate it when a benevolent user notifies me of broken links or other content.
      
      That isn't what's happening here. B&N isn't saying "hey just being nice here -- you have broken links," its saying "hey we are going to break those links you have so change them to point to xyz."
      
      It is quite presumptuous to think that you can send out emails and have millions** of links get changed as a result. A far more reasonable solution in my opinion, as many others have pointed out, is to redirect people somewhere useful when they land at a broken borders page.
      
      **number pulled out of my rear
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Real Zano, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey... this isn't in the right spot. Ignore please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike42 (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:06pm

Tek noligy
Mike,

Microsoft has been breaking links on it's sites for the past 11 years, for no good reason and no useful redirects. I can't tell you how many times I've followed a blog link to MSDN, only to be deposited on the main page. There is a search on the main page, and I've used it, but I've never found the page that was referenced. Which means the page was deleted, right? Wrong. I had to Google the specific item to find out where Microsoft had moved it.
If Microsoft doesn't understand the internet, can we expect B&N to understand it?

See, Google has spoiled you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:11pm

For sale
Could it be possible they want to get something from their investment in Borders IP? I can imagine the Borders url has value in it's generic name. You could either develop a new product with the name or sell it. So Re-directs would be good for awhile but eventually you want to do something else with the URL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:09pm
  
  Re: For sale
  Actually, you're better off leaving lots of links to borders.com, even if they're off topic. It makes the domain more valuable that way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Zano, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re: For sale
  So much fail packed into this comment...
  
  Might it be possible that the rest of humanity has better things to do than to go modify all their web content so that B&N has a way to make money off their Borders IP?
  
  Not to mention that leaving such links in place likely makes borders.com more valuable than it would otherwise be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:16pm
    
    Re: Re: For sale
    You're saying that you, as a webmaster, would prefer to quietly have a bad link than get an email telling you that you have one? Seriously? I always appreciate when someone points out a bad link to me and usually respond with a thank-you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Zano, 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: For sale
      I generally appreciate it when a benevolent user notifies me of broken links or other content.
      
      That isn't what's happening here. B&N isn't saying "hey just being nice here -- you have broken links," its saying "hey we are going to break those links you have so change them to point to xyz."
      
      It is quite presumptuous to think that you can send out emails and have millions** of links get changed as a result. A far more reasonable solution in my opinion, as many others have pointed out, is to redirect people somewhere useful when they land at a broken borders page.
      
      **number pulled out of my rear
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: For sale
        Problem there is you're presuming that they're presuming. Were I them, I'd be pretty happy if even a quarter of the admins of active pages that received the email updated their links.
        
        Then again, were I them, I wouldn't have bothered sending out the email. I would have done it the old fashioned way: screw them, they can update their links when their users complain. I'm a bit of an asshole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jason (profile), 25 Dec 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For sale
        I know, right? Instead of just letting people sink, they're actually going out of there way and saying "hey, this will eventually not work."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scote, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:11pm

I don't see the problem.
B&N do have redirects. But how many people, knowing that Borders is dead, would click on the link? It makes good business sense to try to capture as much web traffic as they can by getting people to update their links to B&N. You don't have to do it. But that is no reason for them not to ask.

No panty twisting needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HMTKSteve, 23 Dec 2011 @ 4:15pm

SEO
Umm... SEO?

If they can get the millions of links to borders to now link directly to B&N they get a ton more SEO juice. Granted they are already at the top of most book search results...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re: SEO
  It seems to me, it could be more useful to leave them as-is (with redirects), and collect that data for market research. Along the lines of "how much marketing power does Borders still have, x amount of time after they folded, and can we monetize the brand again?"
  Or, a quick redirect page, along the lines of:
  
  "Sorry, Borders went out of business!
  
  However, Barnes and Noble is still doing great, so we'll redirect you there in *countdown* seconds!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:07pm

Cheap cheap
Obviously, they don't wanna spend the $9/year on the domain registration... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:06pm
  
  Re: Cheap cheap
  "If it wants to redirect people, just set up some redirects. Don't expect everyone to drop everything and go change ancient links."
  
  Much like the entertainment industry they do not want to do any real work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RobM (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 5:34pm

Clueless
Some VP, or Exec VP, or even Senior VP of Marketing wants to be Proactive before Year-End and get the word out on the brand and ... has no clue, but doesn't even care.

USA, LTD. a wholly owned subsidiary of MegaGinormiCorp��
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IAmNumber813 (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:12pm

Time is Money
When one corporation requests services from another corporation, money usually changes hands. Tell Barnes & Noble that you will gladly fulfill their request for services and that you estimate their project will take a minimum of 30 hours at $250 per hour (plus tax), payable in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:50pm
  
  Re: Time is Money
  The marketing department probably has no intention of agreeing to something like that. Instead of replying to the letter you could communicate with their accounting department and see if they green-light it. I'm not advocating fraud here. Tell them exactly what happened and say you'll need x amount of funds to do it. It might just work. Right hand left hand issues exist in many corporations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechnoMage (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 6:18pm

TBH, I think this wasn't a bad thing...
As long as they were polite, and respectful and didn't threaten to sue.

Consolidating urls, trying to optimize SEO(search engine optimization) to lead to B&N.

But I'm biased having worked for their company, and them having somewhat reasonable SOP compared to other places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 7:21pm
  
  Re: TBH, I think this wasn't a bad thing...
  Absolutely. I'm all about jumping down a company's throat when they've done something shitty. This was the exact opposite though. They did something helpful to webmasters with pages linking to them and they're getting their asses chewed for it. WTF?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Edwardo Angrito's Chiuawawa, 23 Dec 2011 @ 9:15pm

Slow news day, Maz?
So instead of updating the link, you write a bitchy article about an email most probably would have tossed into the spam folder?

What kind of a hack journalist are you? And why do you have a "Too Much Free Time" article category? Maybe you should update that category type to "Things That Make Me Angry" and have a guest poster named Ed Anger post them on your behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 23 Dec 2011 @ 10:12pm
  
  Re: Slow news day, Maz?
  I think TD should change the Borders link so it points to Encyclopedia Dramatica.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 7:07am
  
  Re: Slow news day, Maz?
  "So instead of updating the link, you write a bitchy article about an email most probably would have tossed into the spam folder?"
  
  It's worth pointing out the idiocy that often goes on behind the scenes in corporations. B&N could have done 10 minutes work to redirect URLs, and even used the redirect as a marketing opportunity. Instead, they send out bulk emails telling other people to do that work for them. Creating the mailing list alone would have taken more time than performing the redirect.
  
  This is the kind of thing we need to remember when these same companies are the ones trying to demand "protection" for their business models. They have many more problems than "pirates".
  
  "What kind of a hack journalist are you?"
  
  A blogger on a personal opinion blog?
  
  "And why do you have a "Too Much Free Time" article category?"
  
  To accurately label people who post on opinion blogs demanding investigative journalism and complaining about the stories being written?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2011 @ 1:37am

As long as they are asking and not mandating anything I don't see the problem is like SPAM, I don't like it but I don't think it should be illegal although it is very very annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noah C. (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 9:34am

I fail to see the problem with this. They were kind about it, and it was just for convenience and whatever other things go into this... Come on Maz, you can find a few better things to blog about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FarmerBob (profile), 24 Dec 2011 @ 1:41pm

If B&N actually has rights to the Borders address assets, they can easily and legally redirect them at the registrar level. And not have to "reach out" and have others do their work for them, which to me is a sign of IT incompetence. Or do they "not" have the rights and are trying to do a "runaround"?

I redirect all the time, in the background, and nobody need ever be "reached out" to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2011 @ 8:09pm

No, they are not going to break the borders link.. the whole reason they bought the domain was to redirect it to their site. They want the Internet at large to change the links for SEO purposes and maybe to eventually sell boarders.com when there's little links to it that matter. They are NOT trying to be helpful here by warning us about a soon-to-be-broken link. Even if they did break it, why would rewriting history to make that link go to a different site help any? Borders is dead, thus a dead link would be expected, not Barns&Noble... it's not a big deal either way and at least they were friendly but it is kinda silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CrushU, 26 Dec 2011 @ 10:12am

They DO redirect!
Good lord people. They HAVE set up redirects. They even give a special page because of the redirects. This is not about them being lazy. If anything they would've been lazy to NOT notify webmasters of the old link. No, it doesn't make sense to change every Borders link ever, nor do they say you have to. They've just stated 'Hey, we notice you're linking to Borders.com. That domain is about to fizzle, check the link to see if you need to change it.'

This is an instance of intelligence from a corporation. Why are we deriding them over it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2011 @ 11:12am

Didn't even read the comments.

In case someone else hasn't said it already; this is silly. It's got to be more cost-effective for them to just retain the domain name and direct it to their own pages with some kind of 'we purchased borders message, is this (potentially relevant search result) what you were looking for?'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]