CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (https://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Community (https://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Link posting (https://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=18872)

Mark Gebhard 12-20-2006 07:54 AM

Forgive my poor reading comprehension, but how do you interpret rule 2 for link posting (2. Indicate if it's not work safe/family friendly in the message title.)? To me that reads that you only need to indicate if a link is not safe. If it's safe/friendly then you don't need to say that. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by Lynne in this thread:
[url=http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/23/32940.html]http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/23/32940.html[/url]
yet it looks to be refuted here:
[url=http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/22/34210.html]http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/22/34210.html[/url].

So which is the correct method?

Travis Hall 12-20-2006 09:30 AM

either way rule 3 states you have to summarize the link.

t.


Mark Gebhard 12-20-2006 09:48 AM

Right, of course there should be a summary of the link content, which seems to make a [work safe/family friendly] tag all the more unnecessary.

Ted Williams 12-20-2006 02:32 PM

Do we need to reference if the links within the link referenced are work/family safe? Or is it assumed that most of us can figure out what might be work/family safe :g: And what if we are posting a link to another thread within the forum, like Mark did above? :wink:


Mark Gebhard 12-20-2006 04:29 PM

Yes, just to be safe, I should have indicated that those two links are work/family safe.

Lynne Pitts 12-20-2006 04:58 PM

The rule was initiated primarily for those folks who would post thus:

"Hey look at this" (linkage), thereby indicating neither the subject, its applicabilty, or its appropriateness. This is annoying since nobody knows what it's about, if it's of interest, etc.

Application of the rule receives some slack if a link is in the midst of a thread, such that the context of what it might be is clear, or if from the link name it's easy to assess content or safety (performancemenu.com, mikesgym.com, crossfit.com, etc.)

And no, redundant disclaimers on subsequent references to a link in the same thread are not necessary.

This is all about common sense and courtesy. Not everyone (especially folks on dial-up) has the time or inclination to indulge in "hey, check this out." So, tell 'em: "hey, check out this link about the new framus widget being marketed as a functional fitness tool." Now they know if they want to bother. And, say if it's safe for kids or bosses, to keep everyone out of trouble. Again, simple, common courtesy.

As a note: despite what some paranoid crossfit bashers have whined about on a familiar board, there is no requirement that only family-friendly links be posted. The only requirement is that an indication is provided, so that people can make an informed decision as to whether they want to follow the link.

[edited to add: there are perfectly safe articles on sites that are not work/family friendly due to their pictures, ads, etc., like many of the freebie video sites, t-mag, etc., so a content summary does not necessarily indicate the work-safeness of the site it's on. Thus the request for a summary and a safeness rating.]

Does this clarify?

Mark Gebhard 12-20-2006 08:46 PM

Sure, sounds good. Just wanted a clarification cause that one thread stuck in my memory for some reason.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:04 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.