NPR is joining the growing list of hyperlinkphobia web sites.
From now on, you must gain prior permission before linking to any of their web pages.
Bloody hell…did I just violate some implied law or contract with the above link? Will Linda Werthheimer show up at my door and beat me about the head with her news copy?
Will Clack & Clack whack my windshield?
Check out what they want to know before “allowing” you to link…
Name, email, phone #, homepage where the url will appear, proposed wording on that page, how long the link will stay there, info about the entity that controls said web site etc…
I usually associate this kind of anti-link paranoia with niave loonies who have had a webpage for about three weeks and who think that people who disagree with them don’t have the “right” to link to their site.
I think that, like any other site, NPR’d want more eyeballs! Various programs certainly encourage their listeners to go to NPR.org frequently.
Perhaps they’re angry about their high Google rank?
There has been ongoing controversy in the online world about deep linking, or linking to pages besides a site’s home page, but from the link in the OP, NPR appears to want this information for any links. Weird.
There is are legitimate IP and business issues regarding the deep-linking question; news outlets and ad-supported sites especially oppose it, because they claim that they have the right to control how their content is delivered, and that deep-linking takes viewers past ads that might be on their home page, pissing off their advertisers.
I’m aware of the deeplinking controversy…which of course is all about web site revenue (for the most part)…NPR does not have advertising on their web site though…
Is someone posting nekkid piccies of Noah Adams and Carl Kastle? :eek:
How, precisely, is one supposed to find an article from a link to the paper’s homepage? Assuming that the article is readily available on the main page at all, what happens when the next “edition” comes along?If needed, you can provide with your link info on how to find the specific article of interest once they are on the homepage.
From pld’s first link: “If needed, you can provide with your link info on how to find the specific article of interest once they are on the homepage.”
Uh, yeah. “Got to thisnewspaper.com. Then add ‘/news/national/03982,399383/9103,38388737/209347.html’ to your browser’s URL window.” Sounds convenient.
So if technology is enabling this tool, allow technology to disable the tool. Simply, if the referrer is not a page within the site, then an automatic redirection back to the homepage would stop this type of deep linking. (Yes, you can get around it, but most people wouldn’t bother).
The fact that the owners who are bitching about people linking directly to their content are not using their technologists to avoid this implies that they are too cheap to understand the technology that they are complaining about.
Alternatively, place a session cookie on the machine and if you’ve been ‘exposed’ to the ads from the frontpage, then suppress them on deeper pages, but if you haven’t got the cookie, then place the ads on the deep links. Yes, you can get around this too, but again, most people won’t. And if you don’t allow cookies, then you get every page with an ad.
You see, there are ways that can avoid these issues, but it would seem easier to have a hired thug threaten other small webmasters rather than use their fucking brains.
I’ve never understood the “no linking” or “no deep linking” policy anyhow. My weblog has a readership of about 5…whoop…but if I link to an article and they go read it from my site, isn’t that a pair of eyeballs that would never have gone to that site in the first place?
How does it benefit them to NOT have people link to them - even deep links? I just don’t understand.
Whoah, slow down there with the kneejerking, folks.
Let’s take a look at what NPR is actually saying on their site, from the very link in the OP:
They want people who link to their content to use descriptions such as
They’re not trying to prevent people from linking to their html pages - http://www.npr.org/ - but rather trying to exercise control over their content and to prevent it from being abused.
Not everything is as awful as it seems at first glance.
(And, yes, I do realize that by quoting their material and linking to their homepage I have violated their policy as currently stated. I’ll wager one American dollar that the policy will be rephrased in a relatively short time.)
Well lno…that’s fine and dandy… now Don’t accuse me of kneejerking because that clarification was not there when I made the OP It was only after they got feedback that they clarified the post
Again…they have revised their policy (or at least the phrasing)…the original phrasing said
Which sure as hell does sound like they dont want ANY linked references without permission.
Don’t accuse me of kneejerking without knowing the original facts.
You’re in the Right here, beagledave, both morally and legally.
You know how a lot of these “policies” like this get put into print, anyhow? From lawyers or people who are “cubicle lawyers” with companies who think they 1) know how the Web works, and 2) think they know the law. And who are wrong on both counts.
