Considered Good Form to post Link without Explanation to Maximize Impact?

The Title pretty much says it all.

In this thread in Cafe Society, asking about new favorite commercials, a poster posted a couple of links with no context, brief description, etc. Other posters have complained, or at least raised an issue, by stating that they would never click on a link that is not somehow explained - and, more importantly, that it is “bad form” to do so. The original poster has replied that providing an intro would diminish the impact of the link and that we should know that a fellow Doper is providing Good Stuff™.

Please - let’s commit to avoid making this personal or inappropriate in ANY WAY - okay? Please just address the simple question stated in the title of thread.

What say you?

IMHO, I would say it is bad form. I will not click on links that lack some contextual information so I have a basic understanding of what I will find on the other end…

I think it’s bad form. I will, however, click on links of they look like they might be appropriate, i.e., if somebody asks who a particular actor is, and somebody provides an IMDB link, or (better) a link to the actor’s web page, I’ll click on that.

Still, it’s kind of annoying. However, it’s not as annoying as saying, “A google search revealed the following: linky link.”

I don’t click on links without context as a general rule.

I wouldn’t post in the thread to whine about it, but I don’t like people who attempt to manipulate my reaction-- and maximizing impact sounds like an attempt at manipulation.

Different people define “good stuff” differently, and that’s ok, but it feeds back into that sense of tell me what it is, so I know whether I want to click on the link.

Incidently, the time when it annoys me the most when people post links without context beyond “here’s an example” is in Pit Threads. If you’d give me some context beyond poster being pitted being annoying, I can tell whether I’ve read the thread before or not, without opening another window.

I need to know if it’s

  1. Safe for work.
  2. Safe for my Citrix-stupid computer.
  3. Worth seeing.

I won’t open a link unless I have a pretty good idea of what it leads to. And I do consider it bad form, whatever that means.

While we’re on the topic, I also think youtube videos (all videos) should be labeled as such along with pdfs…actually anything executable. I know many of us work on office computers that don’t allow us to run anything executable and it slows me right down to a crawl.

I wasn’t offended by the lack of context.

I also didn’t bother clicking on the link. An extremely vague description would have set the hook in my brain without wrecking the surprise.

While on the subject on links, is it bad form to mention that a link contains adware?

I almost never clink a link when the word link replaces the addy because I like to see where the link is going.

If you hover over it, 9 times out of 10 the link location will show up on the bottom of your browser.

Like this.

It’s the 10th time that I don’t click either. Some people here know how to make a link that doesn’t show up the address even on the bottom. I don’t know how, except by accident, and will never click on those.

Your right Annamika! :smack:

How about the question regarding aware? Once board I post at requires you to post a popup/adware warning if you post a link to that site. I’ve never seen it mentioned here.

I have a zillion blockers but I’m sure everyone doesn’t.

How about an example of a perfect link?

I sometimes use a quote from the linked site and add the link itself as the cite. Otherwise, I try to make the link part of the sentence I’m citing, counting on the sentance to provide the contect.

Why is it bad form? Why won’t you follow such a link?

Note that this is the SDMB, which means—unless you’re one of the first to take the link—that it is going to be safe for work. In addition, you’re dealing with people who are often funny and insightful, and so why not trust that they’re trying a little creative story telling, for lack of a better term. And in the relevant case, the poster has been a member of the SDMB since 2001, so it’s not like one can expect something against the rules or inappropriate.

The idea of refusing to follow a link sans explanation seems to be equivalent to refusing to listen to a joke without being told the punchline before hand.

But then telling a joke is manipulation. Is it manipulation in some technical sense? Yes; however, it is not manipulation in the sense of attempting to take advantage of people. But, telling a joke, an anecdote, or a story relies on taking advantage of the audience to obtain a good effect.

You were looking for an example of a perfect link?

I think the only think worse than what the OP cites - a link without explanation- is when the OP is nothing more than a link without explanation. This happens in GD way more often than it should.

So, something like this is acceptable, but:

this ain’t?

Both links are to a post pointing out the pet peeve in the SDMB thread in question.

Or is it that I should say: here is the post from the thread in question wherein Dr. Deth expresses his discontent with links posted without explanation?
Rather than:
Try this

Or maybe just

Both links show the URL on the bottom of my browser, so both work for me.

I don’t follow uncontexted links because it’s my experience that the overwhelming majority of posted links in general are a waste of my time and effort. If someone provides me with context, I have some basis for judging whether a link is one of the rare exceptions.

+1 - and I will add that what some folks consider NSFW vs. my definition may be quite different. Or even ending up at a page with audio that I am not expecting. Basically, the more info I have on where I will end up if I clicked on the link will enable me to decide if I can, want to and/or should click on it…

Members of this website might “often” be “funny and insightful”, but they certainly aren’t reliably so. I don’t mean any offense to anyone in particular, but it’s not as though this really is some particular elite group of humanity that’s thus exempt from normal rules of polite interaction. Given the fairly low percentage of links that are posted like this that actually are interesting or relevant to me, that reasoning seems pretty fallacious.

You’re kidding, right? You think it’s incumbent upon me to click any random link anyone posts without even trying to figure out what they’re linking to? Because there’s a slightly greater impact if I see the link without knowing what it is?

Here’s the solution to that: don’t post links to things that are so lame that they’re only funny if I’m shocked at the content.

Too damn bad. Plenty of reasons have been posted as to exactly why it’s irritating behavior. The bottom line is that I don’t necessarily want to visit everything anyone might like to link to. It strikes me as bizarre and egocentric to decide that others should go where you send them without question.

And besides, the fact is that most of the links posted here aren’t relevant to me. The link that inspired this one, I did happen to click. Turns out I’ve seen the commercial before, so it was a waste of my time when he could have just referenced it. YouTube links in particular start playing audio automatically, which can be irritating at times. It’s worse, of course, when people do things like link to Amazon or IMDB (“Check out this book if you want to know more”) but it’s irritating in cases like this, too. Either way, it’s pointless, because I don’t gain anything from seeing visual evidence that a commercial is posted to the web or that a book is sold in stores.

Why can’t I just decide for myself what’s worth seeing? As it is, I just ignore it, since it seems like a safe assumption that any link being posted without any explanation is probably not going to be worth my time anyhow.

I don’t click on unknown links because here my connection is impossibly slow. It’s frustrating as hell to have to jump all over the internets just to follow the discussion, so I rarely even try.

Right. Not to mention worries about Adware, popups, PDF files, etc. Not that those last two are EVIIIIIL, but I’d like to know about them 1st.

But most of the time, there is little or no reason to go clicking around the internet unless you know what to expect.