entrance examination August 3, 2005 4:41 AM Subscribe
Do we need some kind of entrance examination on sign-up to make sure Metafilter members actually know how to make hyperlinks?
In that thread, selfnoise points out that I would clearly fail such an examination.
posted by grouse at 5:58 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by grouse at 5:58 AM on August 3, 2005
Hey, grouse! You made it! We missed ya!
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:17 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:17 AM on August 3, 2005
I still make html mistakes--everyone does at one point or another. Perhaps a sample "a href" thing on the Post page showing the correct way?
posted by amberglow at 6:29 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by amberglow at 6:29 AM on August 3, 2005
Or a gentle reminder of the link function next to the SpellCheck.
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:33 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:33 AM on August 3, 2005
but that link button isn't there on all browsers, i don't think.
posted by amberglow at 6:41 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by amberglow at 6:41 AM on August 3, 2005
Firefox, plus Greasemoney, plus Linkify script. There's a plugin, too, if you don't like GM 0.5 beta.
posted by Plutor at 6:58 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by Plutor at 6:58 AM on August 3, 2005
Why doesn't the MeFi code automatically read the "http://" bit and wrap [a href=] [/a] tags around the URL? Why should users have to know HTML to give a link?
posted by FieldingGoodney at 7:15 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by FieldingGoodney at 7:15 AM on August 3, 2005
People who produce posts like that are akin to the folks who drive around with their parking lights on at night. You could, possibly, set some of them straight about it but there are too many of them content in their ignorance to concern yourself.
posted by majick at 7:16 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by majick at 7:16 AM on August 3, 2005
"Why should users have to know HTML to give a link?"
Because that is how links are expressed on the web. Anchor tags are not difficult markup. Anyone smart enough to paste a URL is smart enough to throw an anchor tag around it.
posted by majick at 7:18 AM on August 3, 2005
Because that is how links are expressed on the web. Anchor tags are not difficult markup. Anyone smart enough to paste a URL is smart enough to throw an anchor tag around it.
posted by majick at 7:18 AM on August 3, 2005
parking lights at night... or better, no lights at all... don't get me started! oops...too late.....
I tend to flash my lights, then turn on my brights and blind them, if that doesn't work I swerve into their lane and hit them!
teach those MF'ers to just use parking lights!
posted by HuronBob at 7:19 AM on August 3, 2005
I tend to flash my lights, then turn on my brights and blind them, if that doesn't work I swerve into their lane and hit them!
teach those MF'ers to just use parking lights!
posted by HuronBob at 7:19 AM on August 3, 2005
I don't know about litmus testing potential posters to metafilter, but if it cuts down on the noise, I'm all for it.
For that matter, maybe a few words on how to construct a frontpage post might be in order somewhere, too. This is the second time in the last couple days that I've noticed this sort of mistake.
posted by crunchland at 7:46 AM on August 3, 2005
For that matter, maybe a few words on how to construct a frontpage post might be in order somewhere, too. This is the second time in the last couple days that I've noticed this sort of mistake.
posted by crunchland at 7:46 AM on August 3, 2005
This is my MetaPetPeeve. This is the web. A link should actually be a link -- clickable and it takes you there. If you are using a browser that doesn't have the link button, please take the three seconds it takes to learn how to make the link. It's beyond easy.
posted by sageleaf at 7:55 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by sageleaf at 7:55 AM on August 3, 2005
Aren't there two ways to handle this?
1) call the user out, proceed to make fun of him or her
2) email said user with some instructions on how to make links
Is this really a problem? How many times have we seen this? A handfull?
I guess what I am really trying to say is: Jimbob, do you feel better about yourself now?
GOD!
posted by Quartermass at 8:34 AM on August 3, 2005
1) call the user out, proceed to make fun of him or her
2) email said user with some instructions on how to make links
Is this really a problem? How many times have we seen this? A handfull?
I guess what I am really trying to say is: Jimbob, do you feel better about yourself now?
GOD!
posted by Quartermass at 8:34 AM on August 3, 2005
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that most software people use these days (word processing, email, etc.) automatically make the link clickable upon pasting it in? Anyone who is used to this behavior might find it surprising not to have it happen on Mefi as well. Also, not ever having had to add in the "a href" on their own, it's perfectly possible they have no clue that such a thing exists in the first place.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:46 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by caution live frogs at 8:46 AM on August 3, 2005
Seriously, what a petty callout.
posted by boo_radley at 8:46 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by boo_radley at 8:46 AM on August 3, 2005
How do I post a photo to Mefi?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:59 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 8:59 AM on August 3, 2005
noted.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:17 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 9:17 AM on August 3, 2005
Why should users have to know HTML to give a link?
Seriously, what a petty callout.
Hmm. It's. Not. Difficult. And the fact that only about one half of one percent of MeFites are too ignorant to figure out how to build a link is evidence that nearly any idiot can figure it out.
If your browser doesn't support the little idiot-buttons, and you don't know how to build/code/write/designate a link, you should either take the ounce of initiative that's required to learn, or get a browser that does it for you.
The bar is already set pretty low.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:20 AM on August 3, 2005
Seriously, what a petty callout.
Hmm. It's. Not. Difficult. And the fact that only about one half of one percent of MeFites are too ignorant to figure out how to build a link is evidence that nearly any idiot can figure it out.
If your browser doesn't support the little idiot-buttons, and you don't know how to build/code/write/designate a link, you should either take the ounce of initiative that's required to learn, or get a browser that does it for you.
The bar is already set pretty low.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:20 AM on August 3, 2005
MetaFilter: The bar is already set pretty low.
posted by voltairemodern at 9:31 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by voltairemodern at 9:31 AM on August 3, 2005
Hmm. It's. Not. Difficult. And the fact that only about one half of one percent of MeFites are too ignorant to figure out how to build a link is evidence that nearly any idiot can figure it out.
If your browser doesn't support the little idiot-buttons, and you don't know how to build/code/write/designate a link, you should either take the ounce of initiative that's required to learn, or get a browser that does it for you.
The bar is already set pretty low.
Well, it's also very easy to write code that recognises the "http://" beginning of a "word" and recognises it as a link, then prefixes this "word" with a "[a href=]" tag and suffixes it with a "[/a]". Most messageboards have this functionality.....it's kind of weird that we have to write HTML in a post (not that it's hard, but it just seems unnecessary)....I guess I should be glad that I don't have to write the SQL statement that inserts this post into the database.....
posted by FieldingGoodney at 9:40 AM on August 3, 2005
If your browser doesn't support the little idiot-buttons, and you don't know how to build/code/write/designate a link, you should either take the ounce of initiative that's required to learn, or get a browser that does it for you.
The bar is already set pretty low.
Well, it's also very easy to write code that recognises the "http://" beginning of a "word" and recognises it as a link, then prefixes this "word" with a "[a href=]" tag and suffixes it with a "[/a]". Most messageboards have this functionality.....it's kind of weird that we have to write HTML in a post (not that it's hard, but it just seems unnecessary)....I guess I should be glad that I don't have to write the SQL statement that inserts this post into the database.....
posted by FieldingGoodney at 9:40 AM on August 3, 2005
Well, it's also very easy to write code that recognises the "http://" beginning of a "word" and recognises it as a link, then prefixes this "word" with a "[a href=]" tag and suffixes it with a "[/a]".
I think that would only encourage people to make links to http://www.metafilter.com/ when they should be making links to MetaFilter.
posted by grouse at 10:07 AM on August 3, 2005
I think that would only encourage people to make links to http://www.metafilter.com/ when they should be making links to MetaFilter.
posted by grouse at 10:07 AM on August 3, 2005
"Well, it's also very easy to write code that ..."
Sure, but that's not what you want. You have to write the code that does so only outside of tag attribute context. And then you have to write the code to manage the preference to disable an ill-conceived feature for all of us whiners. If you want fancy text postprocessing features in your user agent, put them in your user agent.
"Most messageboards have this functionality..."
Do not implement features merely because other, similar software offers them. For example, such software uses annoying bracket tags despite the fact that A STANDARD FOR SUCH MARKUP ALREADY EXISTS AND IS WIDELY PUBLISHED, WELL KNOWN, AND USED. It would likewise be wrong-headed to implement parsing of this alternative non-standard markup.
Why are people afraid of HTML? It's a well-documented standard for marking up text, with embedding hyperlinks a particular fundamental goal, and the basics take less time to learn than learning how to turn on your computer.
posted by majick at 10:11 AM on August 3, 2005
Sure, but that's not what you want. You have to write the code that does so only outside of tag attribute context. And then you have to write the code to manage the preference to disable an ill-conceived feature for all of us whiners. If you want fancy text postprocessing features in your user agent, put them in your user agent.
"Most messageboards have this functionality..."
Do not implement features merely because other, similar software offers them. For example, such software uses annoying bracket tags despite the fact that A STANDARD FOR SUCH MARKUP ALREADY EXISTS AND IS WIDELY PUBLISHED, WELL KNOWN, AND USED. It would likewise be wrong-headed to implement parsing of this alternative non-standard markup.
Why are people afraid of HTML? It's a well-documented standard for marking up text, with embedding hyperlinks a particular fundamental goal, and the basics take less time to learn than learning how to turn on your computer.
posted by majick at 10:11 AM on August 3, 2005
majick: "Sure, but that's not what you want."
Yeah, you need a Regular Expression that's only a little bit more complex in order to satisfy all URL standards.
posted by Plutor at 10:21 AM on August 3, 2005
Yeah, you need a Regular Expression that's only a little bit more complex in order to satisfy all URL standards.
posted by Plutor at 10:21 AM on August 3, 2005
Plutor: pphht. That's not nearly as bad as the email validating regex.
posted by boo_radley at 10:30 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by boo_radley at 10:30 AM on August 3, 2005
whoops, as presented here: http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html. Note that the regex requires comments be stripped from the address beforehand; there's one in Mastering Regular Expressions that accounts for whitespace, iirc. It's enough to intimidate anyone.
posted by boo_radley at 10:34 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by boo_radley at 10:34 AM on August 3, 2005
I think newbies should post some sort of pledge of allegiance.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:39 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:39 AM on August 3, 2005
Excellent point, http://www.metafilter.com/user/17563.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:59 AM on August 3, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:59 AM on August 3, 2005
"Well, it's also very easy to write code that ..."
Sure, but that's not what you want. You have to write the code that does so only outside of tag attribute context. And then you have to write the code to manage the preference to disable an ill-conceived feature for all of us whiners. If you want fancy text postprocessing features in your user agent, put them in your user agent.
It's actually very simple (I've coded similar functions before) - it's not even fancy.
"Most messageboards have this functionality..."
Do not implement features merely because other, similar software offers them. For example, such software uses annoying bracket tags despite the fact that A STANDARD FOR SUCH MARKUP ALREADY EXISTS AND IS WIDELY PUBLISHED, WELL KNOWN, AND USED. It would likewise be wrong-headed to implement parsing of this alternative non-standard markup.
Well, I didn't actually say that Metafilter should have it's own mark-up tags like other messageboards have - I just meant most messageboards generate HTML for http:// strings - that's all - in fact most database driven website have such a function.
Anyway if you don't like solutions, just accept newbies will post un-clickable links then.....simple!
posted by FieldingGoodney at 11:08 AM on August 3, 2005
Sure, but that's not what you want. You have to write the code that does so only outside of tag attribute context. And then you have to write the code to manage the preference to disable an ill-conceived feature for all of us whiners. If you want fancy text postprocessing features in your user agent, put them in your user agent.
It's actually very simple (I've coded similar functions before) - it's not even fancy.
"Most messageboards have this functionality..."
Do not implement features merely because other, similar software offers them. For example, such software uses annoying bracket tags despite the fact that A STANDARD FOR SUCH MARKUP ALREADY EXISTS AND IS WIDELY PUBLISHED, WELL KNOWN, AND USED. It would likewise be wrong-headed to implement parsing of this alternative non-standard markup.
Well, I didn't actually say that Metafilter should have it's own mark-up tags like other messageboards have - I just meant most messageboards generate HTML for http:// strings - that's all - in fact most database driven website have such a function.
Anyway if you don't like solutions, just accept newbies will post un-clickable links then.....simple!
posted by FieldingGoodney at 11:08 AM on August 3, 2005
Doesn't happen everyday
we where all Noobz at some point
teach, or deal, complaining is pointless
posted by edgeways at 11:33 AM on August 3, 2005
we where all Noobz at some point
teach, or deal, complaining is pointless
posted by edgeways at 11:33 AM on August 3, 2005
I do happen to know your basic html tags, so I've never had to just copy/paste like that, or use the little button. Whupdeedoo.
It seems to me that the suggestion that we should screen potential members for this particular bit of knowledge is elitist bullshit. I like the suggestion made by several people to either: help someone learn or quit yer bitchin'.
posted by raedyn at 12:27 PM on August 3, 2005
It seems to me that the suggestion that we should screen potential members for this particular bit of knowledge is elitist bullshit. I like the suggestion made by several people to either: help someone learn or quit yer bitchin'.
posted by raedyn at 12:27 PM on August 3, 2005
I completely agree that linkless posts are sad. Especially the one that references http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/9920
But then again, what do I know?
posted by blue_beetle at 12:42 AM on August 4, 2005
But then again, what do I know?
posted by blue_beetle at 12:42 AM on August 4, 2005
It seems to me that the suggestion that we should screen potential members for this particular bit of knowledge is elitist bullshit.
I don't think it was a serious suggestion. But I gotta admit that I'm daily disheartened by what seems to be a trend these days, everywhere, that expecting even the most fundamental knowledge about... well, pretty much anything, it seems... is quickly attacked as highfalutin' eggheaded book-larnin' bullshit elitism.
It isn't. And even if it is, by god, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:19 AM on August 4, 2005
I don't think it was a serious suggestion. But I gotta admit that I'm daily disheartened by what seems to be a trend these days, everywhere, that expecting even the most fundamental knowledge about... well, pretty much anything, it seems... is quickly attacked as highfalutin' eggheaded book-larnin' bullshit elitism.
It isn't. And even if it is, by god, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:19 AM on August 4, 2005
stavros - I do think it's reasonable to expect a basic level of knowledge about some things without it being 'eltist'. But the knowledge of how to write html is very specialized, and people can do a LOT of things on the internet without ever needing that particular skill.
As previously noted, many online message boards automatically recognize a website address and make it a clickable link. People can even create webpages without ever even seeing html thanks to WYSIWYG editors and the templates provided by many ISPs. So it's possible to be comfortable online without knowing anything about html.
I was bothered by the implication that only people with this particular knowledge had value to contribute to the community. It honestly didn't occur to me that the suggestion may have been made in jest. Perhaps I was being a bit thick yesterday. My apologies.
posted by raedyn at 7:40 AM on August 4, 2005
As previously noted, many online message boards automatically recognize a website address and make it a clickable link. People can even create webpages without ever even seeing html thanks to WYSIWYG editors and the templates provided by many ISPs. So it's possible to be comfortable online without knowing anything about html.
I was bothered by the implication that only people with this particular knowledge had value to contribute to the community. It honestly didn't occur to me that the suggestion may have been made in jest. Perhaps I was being a bit thick yesterday. My apologies.
posted by raedyn at 7:40 AM on August 4, 2005
No need to apologize, raedyn.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:10 PM on August 4, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:10 PM on August 4, 2005
Amazing coincidence. This is my first visit to MetaTalk (I usually hang out on the green), but I was just thinking about this topic today. I'm one of those apparently horribly annoying idiots who doesn't know how to make a hyperlink.
I did ask a MeFite for help once, and the response I got was "the link button is your friend".
I've never had any luck with the link function--sure, I can paste in the link, but where do I put the text? No link shows up in the live preview.
I know that most MeFites are pretty technically savvy, but not all of us. This stuff is TAUGHT, people! It's not intuitive.
Possible derail, sometimes I think hyperlinks are not used constructively. I don't think responses in which the link is simply "this" or "check this out" or something else very vague with no descriptive information. (Not always, sometimes the questions are very direct, so the answers/links are self-explanatory. But so many AskMe questions are vague or open-ended, so a hyperlinked answer without explanation isn't very useful.)
posted by luneray at 4:16 PM on August 4, 2005
I did ask a MeFite for help once, and the response I got was "the link button is your friend".
I've never had any luck with the link function--sure, I can paste in the link, but where do I put the text? No link shows up in the live preview.
I know that most MeFites are pretty technically savvy, but not all of us. This stuff is TAUGHT, people! It's not intuitive.
Possible derail, sometimes I think hyperlinks are not used constructively. I don't think responses in which the link is simply "this" or "check this out" or something else very vague with no descriptive information. (Not always, sometimes the questions are very direct, so the answers/links are self-explanatory. But so many AskMe questions are vague or open-ended, so a hyperlinked answer without explanation isn't very useful.)
posted by luneray at 4:16 PM on August 4, 2005
Thank you smart dalek, your link provides me exactly the information I need.
posted by luneray at 4:18 PM on August 4, 2005
posted by luneray at 4:18 PM on August 4, 2005
majick writes "Do not implement features merely because other, similar software offers them. "
No kidding. Go down that road and next thing you know we'll have avatars, sig blocks, animated emoticons and private inband messaging.
posted by Mitheral at 3:57 PM on August 7, 2005
No kidding. Go down that road and next thing you know we'll have avatars, sig blocks, animated emoticons and private inband messaging.
posted by Mitheral at 3:57 PM on August 7, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Teach HTML linking, and the person you hope will buy you beer.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:11 AM on August 3, 2005