I’d like them more if I wasn’t on dial-up!
Agree
I see it as simply the respect of the property of another. If an author wants his property (writing) to be link only, that’s his choice. He’ll pay through lack of attention if people don’t choose to visit- just the way the market works.
However, what is really annoying are those who “link only” to their blog which does nothing but link to someone elses’ work. (for example, (just to make up a hypothetical name) “Wave Deinbaum” blog posting all the time with links to his blog and that link actually just is a link to ABC or someone elses’ YouTube or something like that).
More than 1/2 the time they’re someone lame simply trying to boost a hit-count. They KNOW you won’t stay, but persist cuz after you click-through they’ve got it made.
The worst offender is this cartoon series with terrible art. What’s more the joke is usually incomprehensible.
I agree. I am also reluctant to click on links to unknown sites, which “link only” articles are.
How could that be annoying in the middle of a serious discourse about a posted article.
Makes me want to go postal.
/johnny
You mean someone who for example, spams every thread about Obama with a mass of links about O’s ties to Ayers and Wright? Yeah, that takes up bandwidth and is annoying to scroll through. That stuff belongs on a person’s home page.
Ideally each started thread would have metrics that would enter a database; each thread would not only list comment # but also view # (as at present) but the Freep searcher could ask for a listing of ONLY those threads featuring over a certain threshold of views, or comments, or view/comment ratio.
This would help A LOT.
If they’re going to post links, at least give an indication as to what it’s about.
I scroll right past them.
If I want to look something up, I’ll do it myself.
And blogpimp teasers are a pain too but that’s a different thread.
I think it would be better etiquette for a Freeper who has a zillion links to post them on his/her own FR personal page and just post a link to that.
I find that they are an incentive to move on to a different thread.
You mean where somebody posts to an existing thread and the post (pre-HTML-coded, and ready to post again and again) includes 20 - 50 links the poster believes are somewhat relevant to the subject of the thread? Yeah, I find them very annoying. I mean, how hard would it be to post one link to his/her FR homepage where all those links could be found if the reader cares to investigate, rather than have all those links thrown in everybody’s face? For example, one link that says, “Links to every global warming hoax article and column ever published!” would work just fine.
Personally, I scroll right past those massive vanity posts.
They tend to just clutter up the thread.
FRegards,
LH
Talking about a post that consists of link after link after after link. Do they bother you? Or do you find them useful?
I find them mildly annoying.
When I hit one of them I just keep scrolling without even attempting to stop and read. Especially one that is basically and entire link. That’s why an ingnore feature would be good so that you could place those who do that on ignore and you’d never see them.
I just usually don’t bother. Like the blog posts, if the information isn’t all posted here, why post? The exception of course are excerpted news stories, but then you usually get the gist of the article with the allowed paragraphs.
I detest them and scroll past, every time, and I have broadband. Sometimes, someone will use HTML code to have a few descriptive words, and I may click it. But a naked link, without a single word, nope. It feels as someone is telling an obscure joke, and I’m supposed to “get it.”
If one is going to post a link, then I want to see at least a sentence fragment describing what is at the link. Life’s too short to wait for potentially stupid web pages to load.
Loving the responses. I’m hoping a few of those who do it read this thread and realize how annoying we find them.
