I have been very unpleasantly surprised by a few links I’ve clicked here recently. Although I take responsibility for knowing what the thread topic was, and making the decision that I had to know, still, a couple have been really horrid. :smack:
I’d like to suggest a rule that anyone providing a link also provide some clue as to it’s contents. Curiousity killed the Celt, and if I just knew what was there, I wouldn’t have looked.
Anybody else think this is good idea, or do I just need to get control of my inquiring mind?
I’m not sure there should be a rule about this, per se, but I do think it’s polite to kind of give some indication of what your link is. For example, for about six months, my computer had no sound. Therefore, YouTube links were pointless for me, and many, many links I clicked on in that time were for YouTube videos. If the poster who posted the link had taken the time to say it was a YouTube video, I wouldn’t have bothered clicking.
It’s also nice to know if the link goes to something skeevy or kind of gross or disturbing.
I’ve seen rule #2 moderated often, but never rule #1.
For what it’s worth, TruCelt, this bugs me too, especially when someone’s entire post is nothing but a blind link with no text of their own. Or worse, multiple links. That’s not really even participating in the thread, if you ask me.
Since it’s right there in black and white in the registration agreement, maybe we in the SDMB community should take it upon ourselves to report posts with mystery links, and hope the mods step in to help the offenders get the idea.
When I mouse over a link, I have a preview pop-up in my toolbar; doesn’t everyone have that setting available? It’s in Windows, don’t know how it works on Mac.
Nawth: I can tell that it’s a youtube, or what site it goes ot, but there’s no warning that the youtube contains something horrid or disgusting.
Thanks Irish! I thought there was a rule, but I see it broken so often that I figured I had it wrong.
So, Oh Great and Powerful Mods, it looks like it’s not just me, although there’s certainly not an overwhelming response here. Would you like us to start clicking the warning sign when we see it? Or is this something you all had identified as too time-consuming and we should just let you know when it’s something aggregious? Waddya think?
I just wish that in threads such as “Your favorite piece of music” people would post <link>“O Sole Mio” as performed by Le Pétomane</link> instead of <link>this</link>
These are all valid concerns that bug me too. For me, the point is that I don’t have time to waste loading a link that may or may not be interesting based on too little information.
I’m speaking only for myself here, but I do find it annoying when a link isn’t adequately described. However, it is not something that I’ve noticed coming up in GQ a lot. I do see it frequently in MPSIMS and IMHO; in those forums I think it’s up to the forum mods as to how vigorously they want to pursue it. I could see it being a bit time consuming.
Feel free to report them – I may not jump on the report as fast as I do on a spammer, depending on how busy I am at work, but I’ll be happy to edit posts to provide info, and to remind people that this is the expectation.
I agree with twickster, and I think all the other mods do as well. It’s impolite not to tell people where the link is going. I don’t think we’re going to be warning people about such, but if you find one, please REPORT it and we’ll all be glad to amend as per twickster’s comment.
It’s especially annoying when the entire post is an undescribed link, so you have no context at all.
Then if you don’t read it, and post a point that was addressed within the link, some smartass will say, “Psst, [post with undescribed link} beat you to it.”
Also when people do this with links to IMdB without naming the movie they’re linking to. Mousing over the link provides no identifying information, just the IMdB code number, so the only way to know what the poster is talking about is to actually click on the link.
it looks like it’s not just me, although there’s certainly not an overwhelming response here. Would you like us to start clicking the warning sign when we see it? Or is this something you all had identified as too time-consuming and we should just let you know when it’s something aggregious? Waddya think?