Linkjacking means different things to different people. Many see it as using the content on one site as the bait to get viewers to pass through your site, or even stay there and explore without going on to the primary content. Most of the time, there will be tidbits or summary information about the primary story accompanied by an interesting image or bit of photoshop magic that takes up most of the page.
To many, including Urban Dictionary, a true "linkjacking" requires that a person from the website doing the linkjacking also submits the story to an aggregator such as Reddit or Digg to drive traffic. I believe that websites and blogs that have a strong enough following to be able to "assume" someone will submit the story are also linkjacking, even if they are not the one's doing the submitting.
The idea is to generate traffic from social media sites and even the search engines without having to write a ton of original content or do the research. Here is an example of a website that I like a lot, Engadget, which is notorious for linkjacking:
RLCC: This is unfair thinking. Picture the Internet where the only links are to original content. This post with a little preview of the post on Soshable wouldn't exist.
Also, what about the intermediary post that actually has stronger content than the one being previewed? It happens.
A large part of discernment comes from seeing who links to whom and about what. The bigger picture of the Real Liberal Christian Church comes through when one looks at all the links and subjects covered, etc.
There are many people who spend a great deal of time trying to figure out ways of keeping the small fish small.
Are the major news aggregators, such as Yahoo and Google, linkjacking?
by JD Rucker from on February 18, 2008, 12:40pm