False anchors give wrong impression

September 5, 2003 5:45 AM

A minor nit, but it's misleading to use a false anchor tag in a link, because people will wrongly assume it's legitimate. The Christian Science Monitor did not declare neoconservatives to be their enemies.
posted by rcade to Etiquette/Policy at 5:45 AM (51 comments total)

What's a "sheep-botherer"? Does it involve the Scottish?
posted by dgaicun at 6:36 AM on September 5, 2003

Misleading perhaps, but comedy plutonium!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:52 AM on September 5, 2003

Curses!
posted by rcade at 7:11 AM on September 5, 2003

...people will wrongly assume it's legitimate.

Heh. That's not the only thing Steve_at_Linnwood assumes is legitimate.
posted by soyjoy at 7:53 AM on September 5, 2003

because people will wrongly assume it's legitimate

especially people who are just dying to cry "liberal media! liberal media!" and are unwilling to take a few seconds and check if, for example, there's, like, a # in the url

but I agree, messing with anchor tags shouldn't be done
posted by matteo at 7:54 AM on September 5, 2003

But what if they're used for good, not evil?
posted by rory at 7:58 AM on September 5, 2003

Here's my thing...I didn't know, until now, that you could do that. My computer literacy is limited, like most people. So to add that tag without some sort of disclaimer or warning (which would defeat the purpose of the tag) is disingenuous.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:06 AM on September 5, 2003

With great power comes great responsibility.
posted by rory at 8:11 AM on September 5, 2003

Great. Another source for snarky hidden editorial comments. Which, incidentally, would be an excellent name for a rock band.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:25 AM on September 5, 2003

I agree rcade. If you have to editorialize a link, use the title attribute.
posted by timeistight at 8:41 AM on September 5, 2003

Right on rcade.
posted by scarabic at 8:56 AM on September 5, 2003

Yeah, you tell'em!
posted by me3dia at 9:00 AM on September 5, 2003

I didn't know it either, BlueTrain. It ruined my chance to revel in Steve's mistake.
posted by rcade at 9:08 AM on September 5, 2003

Yeah, I agree.
posted by dgaicun at 9:08 AM on September 5, 2003

You're right, that was pathetic. BTW, that very same link was posted about two weeks ago but got two negative comments and Matt deleted it. Check out lofi.
posted by 111 at 9:38 AM on September 5, 2003

Hey kablam duped me, I'll admit it. But I wasn't the only one. In fact, I think it was rather clever.

matteo: fuck off.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:01 AM on September 5, 2003

i'm pretty sure bloggers patented that shit, since it's a fundamental device behind many Permalink®™ implementations, so i wouldn't go using it without express written permission.
posted by quonsar at 11:03 AM on September 5, 2003

I would have assumed that the anchor portion of a url was handled client side in the browser, so I would guess it doesn't hit the error log of the web site at all. It may raise some eyebrows in the link referral logs though.

I say that based on no technical knowledge of how it works, but base only on my experience that if the URL can't find the anchor it's looking for in the body, it just leaves you at the top of the page as if the anchor didn't exist.
posted by willnot at 11:48 AM on September 5, 2003

And you'd be right, willnot. Anchors are handled clientside. What's more, the server logs would just show the request for the document, with no indication of the anchor, so we don't get any eyebrows raised either, sadly enough.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:53 AM on September 5, 2003

i'm pretty sure bloggers patented that shit, since it's a fundamental device behind many Permalink®™ implementations, so i wouldn't go using it without express written permission.

You're missing the point quonsar. The anchor doesn't exist; it's in link as editorial comment only.
posted by timeistight at 1:18 PM on September 5, 2003

excuse me, *I'M* missing the point?
posted by quonsar at 1:26 PM on September 5, 2003

*cringes in embarrassment for timeistight, tiptoes out of thread*
posted by soyjoy at 1:36 PM on September 5, 2003

Well, one of us is; let's assume it's me.

What were you trying to say? I was obviously too slow to pick up on it.
posted by timeistight at 1:37 PM on September 5, 2003

posted by quonsar at 2:33 PM on September 5, 2003

Well that clears that up!
posted by timeistight at 2:47 PM on September 5, 2003

Well, one of us is; let's assume it's me.

I don't know why, but that is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

I'll keep you all posted on whether any beverages spew forth from any of my headholes.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:13 PM on September 5, 2003

It seems to have passed.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 3:38 PM on September 5, 2003

i'm sorry, timeistight! it was a back reference to prior quonsar bombast regarding "blogs as panacea: the meme" and the anonymous struggle of blogging pioneers who toiled in dingy, poorly lit makeshift labs to invent the permalink. you probably had to be there, and soyjoy obviously was. the image is a non-sequiter, as am i.
posted by quonsar at 3:53 PM on September 5, 2003

Thank you very much, quonsar. I should never have doubted your comprehension.

The funny thing about this whole thread is, I don't think kablam knew about the false anchor tag; he just copied the link from Dean Allen's blog (or from someone who copied it from there).
posted by timeistight at 4:01 PM on September 5, 2003

quonsar, are you saying that blogs are not a panacea? Because my sanityexistencedecision to go out drinking tonightstability depends on your correct answer to that question.
posted by billsaysthis at 4:46 PM on September 5, 2003

AFAIK, false anchor tags are compliant with Web standards, and so should be permitted and even encouraged.

</trolling>
posted by crunchburger at 4:55 PM on September 5, 2003

the image is a non-sequiter, as am i.

non-sequitur
quonsar didn't spell check!
quonsar didn't spell check!
quonsar didn't spell check!
neener neener neener!
damn it, neener isn't in the checklist either..
posted by wendell at 5:11 PM on September 5, 2003

Not true; a non-sequiter clearly is someone who non-sequites.
posted by Tin Man at 5:30 PM on September 5, 2003

XQUZYPHYR: ditto
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 5:46 PM on September 5, 2003

I've been listening to a lot of Link Wray recently. that guy is FAR OUT!
posted by mcsweetie at 6:03 PM on September 5, 2003

Oh dear, Steve. Why can't you just ignore, instead of escalating? You just come off as an intolerant berk like that.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:12 PM on September 5, 2003

steve, yes please stop escalating a potential flamewar! [this is good].
posted by poopy at 8:57 PM on September 5, 2003

Poopy: I'll spell it out for you, as you missed the point.

especially people who are just dying to cry "liberal media! liberal media!" and are unwilling to take a few seconds and check if, for example, there's, like, a # in the url [Matteo] This is political commentary, not provocative speech, sarcastic but not offensive, targetted sure, but a funny, Mefi-referential link. It does not appear to be abusive, blah

matteo: fuck off. [S@L] This is pathetic, peurile, verbal abuse which misses the point and doesn't respond. S@L got had, in a small, small way, and - like many folks, I guess - when his pride was pricked, he lashed out.

I just thought he was bigger than that, seeing how well he took it further up the thread, is all.

Never mind, storm in a teacup, I s'pose, but I ask you: what's better in RL? Taking a joke like a grown-up, or moody childishness?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:12 AM on September 6, 2003

There are no deliberate double entendres in my last comment!
posted by dash_slot- at 4:14 AM on September 6, 2003

This will come as no surprise to anybody, but I don't understand a single thing in this thread.
posted by ashbury at 5:37 AM on September 6, 2003

It's got something to do with this #. I've got one of them on my telephone too. Cute little things.
posted by ginz at 7:40 AM on September 6, 2003

Octothorpes.
posted by gleuschk at 8:27 AM on September 6, 2003

MetaTalk: Taking it up the thread.
posted by languagehat at 9:21 AM on September 6, 2003

It's easy to explain if you want to know, ashbury. I won't bore you if you don't.
posted by timeistight at 9:29 AM on September 6, 2003

Go ahead, bore me. Don't forget to include the subtext, please.
posted by ashbury at 10:00 AM on September 6, 2003

Okay: It's possible to link to a particular place (called an anchor) on a Web page. For example, the link to your comment above is http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/3510#81058, where http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/3510 is this thread's page and #81058 is your comment.

If the anchor doesn't exist, your browser will still go to the page, so http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/3510#anything_I_want_to_put_here still goes to this thread.

When Dean Allen added a link to the CSM's article about neocons to the sidebar of Textism, he added a non-existing anchor (#know_your_enemies) as an editorial comment.

kablam copied the link, anchor and all, either from Textism or from someone who copied it from there. Steve_At_Linwood saw the anchor, thought that it was real, and complained about the lack of objectivity of the CSM. People made fun of Steve and he got mad.

If there's any more than that going on here, I've missed it too.
posted by timeistight at 11:03 AM on September 6, 2003

Okey-dokey, then. Thank you. For some reason, I thought there was more going on here than met the eye - in jokes, references to other threads, etc.

Move along! Nothing to see here! Move along now.
posted by ashbury at 1:32 PM on September 6, 2003

There may well be. I wouldn't know – I didn't figure out "plo chop" until this morning.
posted by timeistight at 1:49 PM on September 6, 2003

armpitse.cx
posted by quonsar at 6:49 PM on September 6, 2003

No, I mean its subtle, political wit eluded me.
posted by timeistight at 7:13 PM on September 6, 2003

MetaFilter: I thought there was more going on here than met the eye.
posted by wendell at 3:04 AM on September 7, 2003