PR has never been a part of it, do you think it would be of benefit to the users to allow link drops
There is a thread on this very topic located here...
I have been here for several years and I am still unclear on the link policy. It seems that some links are allowed and others aren't in relation to the topic at hand which sometimes does not seem consistent. But, it's not my forum, and they are free to do as they wish. Plus, who actually looks at PR anymore?
PR paranoia has nothing to do with it.
|It seems that some links are allowed and others aren't in relation to the topic at hand which sometimes does not seem consistent. |
I believe the policy is to allow authoritative links. I also believe it's up to the individual mod to determine whether the link should be given authority status or not.
I could be wrong though.
I have been here for several years and I am still unclear on the link policy. It seems that some links are allowed and others aren't in relation to the topic at hand which sometimes does not seem consistent.
Authoritative links are allowed, like php.net.
Larger news sites are allowed like CNN and BBC, as well as large tech sites like Engadget.
So basically, large enough sites where it wouldn't be considered your personal site. This is how I see it anyway.
|I believe the policy is to allow authoritative links. I also believe it's up to the individual mod to determine whether the link should be given authority status or not. |
I could be wrong though.
You are correct. There are rules and there is discretion. :)
I tend to find coder's personal sites the best help. Anytime I need help with something a quick search usually brings me across a small unknown coder's blog with the perfect answer. I stopped coming after one of my posts was edited, just seemed unfriendly when the link was valid and helpful to the OP.
I think the links/brands restriction actually helps the quality of the discussion and boards. The way it is, I feel it is good. It works. The mods do understand when to leave a link, and when to remove it.
Probably the tight site guidelines are what makes this site stand out in all the mediocre, self-appointed, fully automated Web 2.0 sites that just capture a question without any chance of it being answered.
Not having links to outside sites is one of the reasons I spend more time on other forums these days. Theory only goes so far.
While not the #1 contributing factor to me going to other forums, this also bugged me a little.
It wasn't that the rule was in place, it was that it wasn't a black and white rule.
I remember an incident when I had posted a link and it was removed by the Moderator, which is fair enough, but only to have the moderator then post their own link to a similar sized site.
Agree 100% with frontpage. I've been hanging out on WebmasterWorld for eight years and I'm still none the wiser as to how the URL policy works.
The most absurd example? Someone started a thread discussing the merits or otherwise of one of my projects, but didn't specifc that the tool was called or where to find it for fear of falling foul of the URL policy...
It's not hard to stop link drops - have strict criteria for use of links:
- More than XX posts
- Member for more than X months
- Only in context
I agree there should be a policy regarding posting URLs. Without one, this site becomes more of a bragfest and marketing forum than an information source. However, when a URL is directly related to the problem/question, I would think it might make it easier for those of us who need help. It is sometimes difficult to ask a question if we aren't exactly familiar with the correct terminology. Referencing the URL showing the results of our code seems easier than us trying to explain the results of our code (i.e., a picture is worth a thousand words). Surely, when we provide our code here I would think you need to replicate it in some instances to see the results and better explain to us where we went wrong and how to correct it. In my opinion, allowing reference to some URLs could alleviate frustration for both parties.