Now a clear-text reference is a link too?

Webmasters shooting themselves in the foot by removing links/references

[Selen]

It keeps happening. I'm interested in a specific industry and sometimes (usually when I have a question) I post on industry forums. Today I posted the results of my research and a related question that included a clear-text reference (domain name) to a website as a reference. If I didn't post this reference I'd have to write two pages of repetitive explanations. My post was accepted but the "link" was removed. It was not a hyperlink; it was just a domain name in clear text, like:

For reference see: example.com.

Aren't webmasters (or in this case some forum moderators) shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing on-topic references (not even clickable links)? Among those may be the same people who complain that Google or other search engines are too powerful. I guess someone is missing the point. If it's me, I'm not surprised ; ). But in this case it's probably not me.

[lucy24]

In Forums, this is probably a distinction without a difference. Most forums software-- including hand-rolled ones like the present forum-- will automatically change anything beginning in http or www to a link. In fact that's why notations like [ url= ] exist.

In non-Forums contexts, hasn't google always counted plain-text references as links? It's a recurring source of 404s (see any random wmt report) when they interpret a final . or ) as part of the link.

[not2easy]

In non-Forums contexts, hasn't google always counted plain-text references as links?

I have read that too, wish I had noted where. Domain name mentions in UGC content will frequently get a snip. I don't know a formula to decide on what stays or goes, but user authority and domain authority figure in and so do the overall site policies. Whatever the reasoning, if it is part of the policy it should be in the site's terms as to what is or isn't acceptable to post. You shouldn't need to find out after the fact.