2 ms·

> I understand the sentiment you're conveying but a link isn't sacred. It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www. > If you allow users to post

> I understand the sentiment you're conveying but a link isn't sacred. It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www. > If you allow users to post content to your site then you should be taking measures to ensure that new users aren't spamming. Of course, but breaking legitimate links as a form of spam control is just lazy. We're going OT here, but... > eliminating the "PR bleed" There is no such thing. PR doesn't work this way, and the existence of outward links doesn't negatively impact the linking website in any way.

skore 14y ago
> It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www. I think it is just as much the basis of the www to show a link as it is to not show it.
jonknee 14y ago
> It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www. Anything on the www is only sacred if it's on your server. If you're on someone else's server it's up to them to extend the privilege of making links (or any content). Having links moderated for new users seems pretty fair--the vast majority of brand new users who make a post that contains links are spammers. The worst case is it will take a little time for a mod to clean up. You can even have your link be removed publicly but still function for members (so no Google juice but people can still answer your question). If you have ever moderated a forum you will know how bad spammers can be. It's not just posts either, PM spam is really popular and a lot harder to police.
mehwoot 14y ago
> It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www. Surely it is the right of whoever is hosting the website to decide how they want to present content. I don't think you should have some god-given right to expect a url you posted on someone else's site to display however you want.