Thread: Link posting
View Single Post
Old 12-20-2006, 04:58 PM   #6
Lynne Pitts
Affiliate Lynne Pitts is offline
 
Lynne Pitts's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Madison  WI
Posts: 3,232
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?
  Reply With Quote