When you insert a link, check it TWICE

Should we use a link in our emergency alerts? Will people click them? Are some more trustworthy than others?

We have research to answer each of these questions.

In 2019, WEA 2.0 made it possible for alerting authorities to include a URL to guide people to additional information. This was a huge win for the emergency management community! Until then, we were limited to shorter messages AND no way to offer additional information. Then, everything changed and it was suddenly possible to direct people to authoritative and trusted sources to help them make life-safety decisions.

People will click on a link ... if they have a personal motivation to do so AND they trust the link. First, we have found through experimental research that even when people are repeatedly told that the link is live and they should click it to get more information, most choose NOT to click it. You can read about it here: Cain et al. 2026. What makes this most problematic is when you use the URL in place of a complete message. In other words, instead of writing a message that contains the source, hazard, location, guidance, and time, we find organizations writing something like "AMBER Alert: URL" and then relying on people to click. This is not a good practice when most of the vital information can be included in that complete message.

We also know what kinds of links people trust. In additional experimental research, we found that .gov and .com are the most trusted domains. However, many organizations send people to X or Facebook for additional information, or they use a link shortener, like bit.ly. Each of these approaches are problematic. First, they are not widely trusted as authoritative information sources and, second, in some cases you must have an account to be able to access the information contained on that social media page.

Furthermore, a bit.ly type link, which has no obvious landing site, is least trusted and can be viewed as spam or potentially linked to malware - those who are wary of non-obvious websites are much less likely to click them, meaning they will not access the additional information you are providing.

The evidence about links thus far is this: 1) write a complete message and add a link to provide additional details or updates; 2) use a trusted domain so that people will be willing to click, and 3) send people to your agency website rather than social media.

But there is yet another angle thats really important to consider when adding a link: its accuracy. By accuracy, we mean that it directs people to 1) a live page and 2) the page is the place you want them to go. We see examples of mistyped URLs frequently, where the page cannot be found. However, there's also this example (see below) where the URL directed people not to the agency webpage, but to an adult dating site.

An opt in alert with a bad link.

When my team at the University at Albany built the FEMA IPAWS Message Design Dashboard, one of the features it included was a test of every link, to ensure it was live. It did not, however, check to ensure it was also the correct webpage. The manual review of a message remains paramount if you are to ensure overall accuracy and leaving it to a bot to check for you risks danger and, in this case, embarrassment.

Go ahead an insert that link into your message --- but check it twice before hitting send.

For more on effective alerts and warnings, be sure to download the Warning Lexicon or visit Jeannette's academic page and read about additional research.