 |
|
|
|
| ForAndAgainst Should Stop Editing Links Out Of Posts |
| Debates are enriched, not impoverished, by links to external sources of information. It's clear that the moderators on this website implement a policy of cutting out bits of text which contain links to other websites or even other parts of their own website. This is a bizarre policy which should be changed. In my debate about the Chinese takeover of Tibet, I included a link to a mutli-thousand word article which explored the subject in depth. Looking at that debate again, I see that the link, and the text which described it, has now been excised. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I put the copied paragraph at the end, and site my source. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes I agree... And made a similar post.... Which you disagreed w/ by the way.... Such a surprise |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Links validate statistics, expand the debate, and help to guarantee a fuller understanding of the
subject. There is no reason, unless of course it's an inappropriate site, that they should be edited
out. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If the technology is there for us to use HTML in the posts (I occasionally use bold or
italic text to emphasize a point), then why can't we fully utilize it? Obviously within
reason (malicious coding, etc), but we should be able to reinforce our statements by providing
another source. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I feel like the people who run the site although no doubt believe they know everything and are kings
of the universe are not really very good at customer service or indeed lack a proper understanding
of community building..
The logic behind link restriction is to stop the site becoming used for promotion of other sites or
products, yet the wise thing to do is to put that within the T&C's and if you are taking the time to
edit out links then take the time to check the link first to allow it or not..
It takes a just a little more time man hours but if you want to have proper debate and good
returning users then that is what you have to do, it is worth it in the end.
The worst thing about them is that they edit posts and in my case completely delete a post and then
never send you an email to tell you what has been done and why or better yet give you the
opportunity to change what you have written.
Again a little more time consuming, but if you ran your business based on what the easiest option
was all the time your business wouldn't last long and is certainly worse off for it.
I am still very close to not coming back due to their bad customer service and although a nice site,
there are others far better run to choose from and will simply move on..
I wonder if their arrogance will allow them to take these complaints on board ? From my experience
so far I doubt it..
I even sent them an email asking why something had been done and after a week have not even
received an acknowledgement or reply.. For instance.. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree. In my debate with Stranger concerning the Big Bang, my most recent comment gave out
multiple links to different sites explaining a great deal of information on subjects such as
entropy, macroevolution, Newton's Laws of Motion, the Big Bang, and radioactive decay. I’ve
noticed now that my entire comment, not just the links, was completely removed from the page. This
has also occurred multiple other times with my posts in other debates as well, most of which had no
links on them to begin with. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
As long as contributors are selective about what links they include in their posts, these should
probably be allowed to stay. I imagine that the moderators may be concerned about hyperlinks used to
take readers to websites with questionable content and the no-link policy may also serve as a way to
ensure that posts are not used to promote other products or commercial services. I agree, however,
that the link to the Parenti article included in Hidell's recent post on China's invasion of Tibet
was useful and interesting, even if it added fire to an already heated topic. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, it should. Why include a facility for putting external links into a post then edit them out
whenever someone uses it? At the very least, if this bizarre policy is going to be pursued, there
should be a statement somewhere on the website which explains why. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 Mar 2008 17:49
Sign In
