| 4:55 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No, no, no.
Links take information off-site, leads to discussion of off-site phenomenon, can be used manipulatively.
| 5:01 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Don't mind the nixing of personal URL's, most of us have to pay for advertising - which is what it's mostly disguised as - so should anyone else.
What really needs to go away is the small bold text following a link, it makes it really hard to display sample code involving a url.
Edit: Something is goofy with the style tags today, just in this post. I posted a new topic, they are working fine . . . for whatever reason, they are broken here. The BBcode scheme that has always worked is
Now this is all that seems to be allowed
which of course doesn't link. Weird. Guess the code checker needs a closer look.
[edited by: rocknbil at 5:18 pm (utc) on May 25, 2010]
| 5:04 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
NO NO and No, if that started happening I for one would likely stop using the site, the stopping of all that crap makes this site unique
| 5:10 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No links makes sense. Here to deal with problems, not make new ones.
| 5:10 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I do not agree with personal url's but, I would like to see a little more give in the allowable urls.
Example, recently I was trying to show Google results on a proxy server in a caffiene thread but was not allowed to use the url of the proxy.
Self serving links NO... Informational/helpfull links sometimes... just use the nofollow or redirect to avoid any spamming attempts.
| 5:16 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Maybe a closed forum section ~ members only would be a space where links could be posted, but not in the open forums imo.
| 5:21 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
One of the great strengths of WebmasterWorld is the reputation it has for not allowing links to personal sites.
| 5:26 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 5:35 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm not necessarily opposed to outside links, but I think perhaps they should be moderator approved to eliminate spam. Perhaps a ***LINK PENDING VERIFICATION BY MODERATOR*** message could appear in the post until the link is approved.
Might be a lot of extra work for moderators, though. Sometimes outside sites might be very helpful, I've found sites from time to time that offered information that would have been helpful to discussions here, but of course I couldn't mention them.
| 6:21 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I would prefer no direct links in any posts just as it is now.
However, in cases as mentioned by Kelowna and AndyA let it be allowed to mention the site's name, ex. mysite.com without an Href, everyone here knows how to go to a site without a link to click on.
| 6:23 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
no links, can only cause problems!
| 6:39 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No. I think the current policy of no links with the rare exception made by a mod is the best policy.
| 7:15 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|perhaps they should be moderator approved to eliminate spam |
I'm not sure how much extra free time most moderators want to contribute and this would add to it.
- you would have to visit the link
- you would have to make sure that after you visit, the link doesn't get switched
- you would have to guess whether or not it was just self-promo spam or legit, which is not always clear.
The policy needs to be either very open or very closed, with moderator discretion applied only for limit cases.
| 7:30 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No links, the policy escalates the quality of this forum.
| 7:40 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think this one is a non-starter: PERSONAL URLS
We have that in our profile (if we give it).
Current presentation is perfect and (as I have said too often in recent posts during feedback daze) if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
| 7:49 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
my vote no.
Kelowna think about it like this posting a proxy server link can take you anywere so how can I check the linkt to see if it is a good link and not a hacked site without having to click the link.
You got to remember here there are some really big webmasters here with access to a ton of stuff. Posting bad urls here is a hackers dream. I have had a couple pulled after sending the mod a notice but wonder how many it infected.
| 8:08 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think this has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Generally links to well known authoritative sites are fine as a point of reference, but we don't want a flood of links to personal sites. Its a very slippery slope.
| 8:11 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The links policy here is one of the best on the web this enables people to explain what they need versus look here and then its a hacked site serving payloads. No link changes please.
| 8:15 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The link policy is terrific the way it is.
| 8:24 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Links would be a problem. There will people who post them to try to get "juice" and people who post them to get traffic. Tell about the problem, don't expect people to go to your site.
| 8:34 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The current policy of no links with rare exceptions seems to work well.
I've often posted links which get shown. I'm guessing this is often because of my track record built up over the last 8 years.
Don't touch please!
| 8:37 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If there an ability to flag links or build Akismet to filter known spammers/ips it might be quite useful. Being able to rank/rate the links can be useful as people know the link is relevant/active/useful.
Needs to be not a forum full of old broken links, if the link resolves a 404 can it be removed automatically once it moves to achieves?
| 9:15 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I know I don't make it to WebmasterWorld as often these days because of the "no urls can be posted" issue. Trying to discuss ranking without being able to list/post/see specific urls makes it really hard to tell for sure what people are talking about, and increases the risk of misunderstandings. It seems like it cuts down on the ability for everyone else to assess what someone's saying.
Just my quick $0.02.
| 9:17 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No links. Please no links.
| 9:22 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No URLs is (still) a good place to be.
| 9:30 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No links is the best way! I would venture to say that most everyone here knows how to get a hold of someone if needbe! We don't need URLs and emails
| 9:49 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The no-links policy keeps the rift-raft out, so only serious posters come here. If you allow links, all we'll have are robot postings.
| 10:05 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
there is a tear in the fabric of space and time somewhere.
the head of google's webspam team just voted to add spam to one of the least spammy places on the web.
| 10:26 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I wasn't gonna say anything...
I wanted to though.
| This 62 message thread spans 3 pages: 62 (  2 3 ) > > |