We collect links like stamps. But why?

Collecting Links is the 21st-century version of collecting stamps. We collect them, organize them, and never use them again.

I think collecting links is even worse - more irrational - than collecting stamps. Stamps have some value. Stamps can be used to send letters. But if left unused or hoarded, this value depreciates over time and soon reaches a point where the value goes so low that stamps become useless.

Like stamps, links have some intrinsic value. This is the value that you get from actually clicking the link and consuming the content of the link. Rationally speaking, you collect a link because you assume that this intrinsic value justifies your collecting and organizing the link.

So, what happens to the value of a link over time? Like stamps, it depreciates over time. Sometimes sites go out of business, and sometimes the content itself is time-sensitive and becomes useless. After this point, that means the effort that you have put, into collecting the links becomes worthless.

But Unlike stamps, you don't own the links. This makes link collection far worse than stamp collection. If you own a stamp that has gone out of circulation, there might still be a chance that it becomes a collectible like a painting. There is always a chance, no matter how negligible it is, of hitting a lottery.

With links, that chance is 0, because you don't own the link. A link might be taken away from you at any time. What you have in your collection is just the address to the content. So collecting links is like collecting addresses to all the famous hotels, hoping that you will one day have the time(money) to go to the hotel.

But what if you save the content of the link in an app like Pocket? In this case, there is an argument in favor of link collection and it goes like this - in the future, you might find a need for the content and it would be easier for you to access it if you have saved it.

This might be true but conditionally. You will have to judge the collectability of a link by the following metrics - Probability of finding the link again, Usefulness of the content of the link, and time sensitivity of the content.

For example:

Saving a link of "Do things that don't scale" by PG, might be rational as the content is not time-sensitive, and the usefulness of content is so high that you can't take the risk of missing out, no matter how small that risk is. The link is a time-insensitive, content homerun.

On the contrary, saving the link "10 best JavaScript courses" might be a bad idea. It is time sensitive and easily findable, and its usefulness is unclear.

What about "10 best JavaScript courses recommended by Paul Graham"? Saving this link is also a bad idea. Reasons: somewhat time sensitive, finding the content is easy, usefulness is high but not enough to justify the effort.

In short: time-insensitive, content home runs are most collection-worthy, all other links depend on where you choose to draw a line based on the metrics.

END

Note: This is just me exploring my thoughts and I still haven't completely made up my mind on his topic.