I don't have much to add to Tom's answer. It sums up everything pretty well. > "Editors" are obscuring my links, which is against my policy of obscuring links **Nobody's deliberately obscuring** your links. If I go ahead and shorten all your links with `goo.gl` or `bit.ly`, that's obscuring. > The web is full of dead links, how does having the full link visable without hover assist users **Give your readers context.** If you link to an article that has the title "Foo Barring the Baz – Tips and Tricks", but the link itself is just `http://example.com/post/10293176`, giving the link a proper title gives the user some context about what to search, even if the link goes dead. > Well. It also makes the whole thing look better too This is the whole point. Try to sell your answer. **Make it pleasant to look at**. It's not only about the content, it's also about how it looks. For example [here][1]: > ### First revision: > > ![enter image description here][2] > > ### Last revision: > > ![enter image description here][3] Which one visually looks "better"? Which one would be easier to parse? I know we've talked on chat and that you weren't against my edits, and I really think you're contributing very well to the site. Keep it going and just think of your readers – give them something they can easily read. [1]: https://superuser.com/posts/342373/revisions [2]: https://i.sstatic.net/pXUQi.png [3]: https://i.sstatic.net/Mwg4a.png