Just as we politely warn that a link is to a pdf file, should we also warn that a link goes to you tube or another streaming video site? You tube is a big no-no at my work.
I think it would be nice - especially since YouTube is such a big no-no here I can’t even run videos! So I get this:
This is really cool! I mean, it’s the awseomest thing around!
[Link]
And then I click on the link and…nothing. And then I have to feel all 
while everyone raves about it.
But I’m not as picky as pdf, which SUCK EGGS.
The flip side of this, of course, is to look in the status bar when you mouse over a link to see where it goes. Good idea for surfing in general.
Both would be good. A warning and better user habits. I think I always provide information the link is to a video and I almost always mouse over before clicking.
Jim
Yes, I think it is courteous to mention that it is a youtube link. It isn’t too big a deal now, but when I had dial-up it was frustrating.
Some people don’t enable the status bar (one reason is to have more screen real estate). I usually do a YouTube link as a straight URL so that the http://www.youtube.com part is plain to see right there in the text. The exception might be when I make it plain by context, like check out this video.
Those are both way better ways of doing it.
The compalint I have is the same one I have about IMDB links - I can tell it’s a youtube video, but the meaningless ID no. means I sometimes can’t tell what it is a link to, when the poster just does a link like “look at this”.
The same goes for (some) Amazon links (though I’ve noticed that sometimes the link does contain the title). It’s particularly annoying when such links occur with minimal context, as they often do. For instance, someone mentions something in a thread, and someone else says “That’s a good idea”, or somesuch, with an Amazon link to a book that discusses similar themes (often as a joke).
Linking to YouTube is not like linking to a mp3, movie, pic, Office file or PDF file. Linking to YouTube always takes you first to the Youtube page which has the flash movie embedded in.
It still starts playing automatically, which could be an issue for some people.
I think it’s a good idea to identify the links by either of Lib’s methods. The exception, IMO, would be in threads explicitly devoted to sharing favourite video clips, where one should not need to be informed that the links point to online videos.
I don’t mean to hijack, or rant, but it seems pretty shitty to me, that a company would allow you to access a YouTube page, then get you in trouble for doing it. If you don’t want your people going there, then frickin’ block it! Don’t use it as some test of your employee’s loyalty.
You’re looking at it the wrong way. IT cannot block everything on the web. So, employees are expected to be responsible users of the internet access at work. One hit on Youtube is not likely to get an employee in trouble in any company I know of. Have the most internet usage in the company and having most of it being rotten tomatoes as an example would.
While blocking YouTube makes sense, the blocking software would still see and record the attempt, so it is better for posters to mark the links as video and if you* are a person worried about usage, turn your darn status bar on and take responsibility for what you are doing.
Jim
- That last you was a general you and not directed at if6was9.