Chris_Boggs - 2:42 am on Feb 15, 2013 (gmt 0)
sorry folks about not having trimmed that quote any further. I just put the whole section in for context, but obviously was only referring to the link portions which are innocuously powerful in a strange way. :)
I did not in fact link to the site rather made reference to a page - Yep there are plenty of "example" links that could be violating such terms.
I think it would be fun if someone tested it... I may try to work that in somewhere.
Lucy I did try to provide an example where you may not want a human visitor, but of course most scrapers would be automated. I feel that there are instances where a site owner could test as a more positive overall user experience for your community by not forcing login/firewall/robots etc, and rather keeping the website "on the low." If you really wanted to do this maybe you would ask people that have traffic volume and are sending bouncing traffic to your site, to remove a link?
I know business owners that use security to block even remotely suspicious visitors, so the more links to them the more potential bad UX for desired visitors.
The Shell example is pretty hilarious for a number of reasons... it seems that almost 10k root domains link to shell.com... however we have no idea if and how many Shell has gotten removed by sending scary lawyer letters. In my experience all these Terms of... for big companies eventually come in to play.