What exactly is a link? June 11, 2007 7:27 PM   Subscribe


Naturally, I say no and the post should be deleted. But if not that, then at least get rid of any links, direct or indirect, to the actual websites.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 PM on June 11, 2007


Naturally, I say no

Explaining why would be very helpful.
posted by grouse at 7:40 PM on June 11, 2007


Better than linking to the site directly. Plus there's always nofollow.
posted by Tuwa at 7:43 PM on June 11, 2007




I agree with Tuwa. The poster was dealing with a dicey subject while trying not to give pedophiles traffic from metafites. Seems like the best solution to me.
posted by misha at 7:45 PM on June 11, 2007


Also, phaedon has the post and cortex has the "more inside"?
posted by Tuwa at 7:46 PM on June 11, 2007


The poster was dealing with a dicey subject while trying not to give pedophiles traffic from metafites.

woah Woah WOAH.

That's Mefites. Mee Fights.
posted by carsonb at 7:48 PM on June 11, 2007


I always thought it was "Meh" fits.
posted by YamwotIam at 7:56 PM on June 11, 2007


Hm, now that I see it I kinda like "metafite". Sounds like "cenobite", which may or may not be related.
posted by puke & cry at 7:57 PM on June 11, 2007


Without having specifically read this anywhere, I was under the impression that linking to a google cache provided one with the ability to link to a site with questionable content, without providing the site owner with any potential ad revenue generated by direct hits to his website. That said, I hope you aren't under the impression I tried to sneak anything in.

I'm not sure what you're advocating here, since I linked to (unfortunately) legal content. If I didn't post the link in the OP, someone would have in the comments. You probably see this as advertising; I see it as raising awareness.

on preview, about the chopping in half of the post:

I want people to realize - even though I didn't mention this specifically in the OP - that the Lindsay Ashford article is linked to by McClellan on his own site. This is not some random guy. They are bound together by a common interest and appear to be supporting eachother in the media and on the internet on multiple fronts. Whether it is event listings, myspace, wiki entries, blog posts, or interviews. The chopping in half makes it look like I was just providing background info, when in fact I am suggesting a connection. i nearly posted his article without researching this.

cortex: could you replace the direct link to ashford's blog with this?
posted by phaedon at 7:58 PM on June 11, 2007


Tuwa writes "Also, phaedon has the post and cortex has the 'more inside'?"

Let's Alice writes a really long post. Cortex decides that it takes too much space, so he decides to move some of it to the inside. He edits Alice's original entry, cutting out half, and then he pastes that in a comment (which is in his name, not Alice's, because Cortex is logged in as Cortex, not as Alice). I suspect that's what happened here (substitute "Alice" with "phaedon").
posted by Bugbread at 8:12 PM on June 11, 2007


Well, that makes sense. Thanks, bugbread.
posted by Tuwa at 8:15 PM on June 11, 2007


bugbread nailed it on the MI. It's kind of a pain, and it'd be better if people would just avoid that sort of sprawl in the first place. I'm just glad I saw it early.

phaedon: replaced as such.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:34 PM on June 11, 2007


NO
posted by caddis at 9:31 PM on June 11, 2007


What tuwa and misha said. It's a touchy subject, but it wouldn't make much sense for post about it to dance around the site.

Also:

MetaFilter: What exactly is a link?
posted by brundlefly at 9:37 PM on June 11, 2007


Another previous MeTa - A link to NAMBLA is just wrong.
posted by Chuckles at 9:52 PM on June 11, 2007


Mea culpa. Mefites! I meant Mefites! I'm so sorry.
posted by misha at 10:19 PM on June 11, 2007


Won't you all, please, think of the children?! No, wait - not like that! Don't think of them like that! Won't you all, please, stop thinking of the children?!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:25 PM on June 11, 2007 [11 favorites]


You could still link to the TV report without the other sites.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:41 PM on June 11, 2007


cortex: thanks.
posted by phaedon at 12:19 AM on June 12, 2007


I appreciated the Google cache links. It's not like I didn't want to "give them traffic", it's just that the idea of going to the site kind of, I dunno, I felt kind of uncomfortable. When I saw it was just a cache link, though, I felt more comfortable.
posted by delmoi at 5:54 AM on June 12, 2007


I'm with delmoi.
posted by klangklangston at 11:22 AM on June 12, 2007


What delmoi said. Google Cache acts as a sort of minimally obfuscating proxy through which to view links that might be badly misinterpreted by casual network snoops.
posted by turing_test at 12:18 PM on June 12, 2007


I hope you aren't under the impression I tried to sneak anything in.

Nonononononono, I think I understand why you did it (to link to the content without linking to the actual site and avoiding giving the site traffic). I'm just questioning linking to such content in any way, shape or form.

Clearly the admins disagree, so be it.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:31 PM on June 12, 2007


« Older old::hotness tag   |   Mefi permanent cache links Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments