The linking system is sufficiently complicated that I don't think it has been designed for every day users. Rather, it's a much-appreciated addition for us power users, who routinely link to the Times.

Still, I think the deepening of the information contained in a hyperlink is significant. Even a small change to one of the fundamental structures on the Internet could end up having far-reaching (and not necessarily salutary) impacts.

Take URL shorteners like bit.ly. Until their rise, when you saw a link, you knew, at the very least, to which domain it would take you. Now, that's not always so clear. URL shorteners made linking on Twitter more convenient, but less safe and harder to scan. Another way of thinking about it: they made a little more work for the linker and linkee, in exchange for a reduction in characters. The whole thing is a net loss. Still, given how Twitter works, it was a necessity.

On the other hand, the Times' linking system is a win for everyone, I think. It makes a little more work for the linker, but has the potential to seriously reduce and clarify which has been linked. It's a positive evolution of the hyperlink and I hope other sites take note and get busy.