Which do you find more useful. The attribution (“So-and-so writing in such-and-such a source”) in bold header type at the head of the article, or the older-style “Via such-and-such a source” at the bottom after the blockquote? If you’ve noticed, I have been vacillating between the two and, be it as it may that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, the inconsistency is bothering me. Your comments are welcome…

The “via” approach. Shorter … and I’m used to it.
LikeLike
Sometimes I have a problem discovering the trailing reference, like here:
Trump’s disastrous ABC interview…
— Aaron Rupar writing in Vox
where “Vox” is the link but I really have to look for it because the color difference is too subtle for me. If “Vox” was more prominent it would work better for me.
LikeLike
I don’t care about the blog where you first read about the subject – just provide a link to the subject. This “via” business doesn’t matter anymore.
LikeLike
btw, I do appreciate your summaries very much, very strongly urge you to keep them.
LikeLike
I’d vote for “The attribution (“So-and-so writing in such-and-such a source”) in bold header type at the head of the article”. It makes it simpler to go directly to the source (if desired), and is also a nice call-out to the source. And like GRZZ40, the summaries are what makes your blog, please keep them if you can, though I know it takes a lot of time. They give a special personal flavor to each blink, conveying as they do how it looks through the eyes of someone whose intellect I respect deeply.
LikeLike