Link posting

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:
http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/23/32940.html
yet it looks to be refuted here:
http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/22/34210.html.

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Posting	Ben Kates	Starting	8	08-14-2007 07:36 PM
Link Posting Rules	Lynne Pitts	Announcements	0	10-20-2006 03:47 PM
Posting to Comments	Kurt Holm	Workout of the Day	13	07-28-2006 04:50 AM
New here-2nd posting	Harold gilbert Cureau	Starting	6	04-12-2004 12:43 PM
Pre-posting wod	Larry Lindenman	Workout of the Day	1	02-17-2004 01:00 PM

12-20-2006, 07:54 AM	#1
Mark Gebhard Member Profile: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin TX Posts: 186	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: http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/23/32940.html yet it looks to be refuted here: http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/22/34210.html. So which is the correct method?

12-20-2006, 09:30 AM	#2
Travis Hall Departed Profile: Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 647	either way rule 3 states you have to summarize the link. t.

12-20-2006, 09:48 AM	#3
Mark Gebhard Member Profile: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin TX Posts: 186	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.

12-20-2006, 02:32 PM	#4
Ted Williams Member Profile: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Jose CA Posts: 381	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:

12-20-2006, 04:29 PM	#5
Mark Gebhard Member Profile: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin TX Posts: 186	Yes, just to be safe, I should have indicated that those two links are work/family safe.

12-20-2006, 04:58 PM	#6
Lynne Pitts Affiliate 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?

12-20-2006, 08:46 PM	#7
Mark Gebhard Member Profile: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin TX Posts: 186	Sure, sounds good. Just wanted a clarification cause that one thread stuck in my memory for some reason.