suggestion re: linking rules

I had originally posted something like:

Admins, thanks for being responsive, the new text looks great.

 
I don't know why it was deleted, but the edit notes show: [edited by: glenmar at 10:45 AM (GMT -5) on Sat, Nov 10 2007]

Benedict

The language of the guideline has been altered slightly....I do hope this is the end of the matter.   

Hi Benedict, did you forget something?

Have I forgotten anything?  No. 

So I am still in wait mode.  Its ok, I know you are busy.

DPU, go back to top of first page, I think you must have missed this!

Benedict

DPU - I have addressed your concerns.

DPU

So I am still in wait mode.  Its ok, I know you are busy.

DPU, I'm lost.  Is this some kind of issue that is being discussed privately?  If not, please elaborate.  We all know that I'm nosy!

espencer

 Linking to videos= personal experience and disclaimer, gotcha , i just hope i dont get questioned then with stuff like "really? when did you do that? with who? how much experience do you have" etc

I ask the moderators to please check on that, we know that asking for "credentials" or "experience" dont come with the best intentions
 

There's a line between harassing for "credentials" and simply being interested in hearing about your personal experiences  which may also be of benefit to someone looking for advice for a specific problem.  That's the POINT of a discussion board, surely?  And it's even laid out in the guidelines, look:

If you are describing a technique and occasionally post a video/content link to illustrate your point that can be very useful, but for the most part we want to hear *your* experiences and for you to share your own knowledge. 

Emphasis not added by me.

I find it slightly astonishing that any one member of this board could be considered so important as to have a whole set of guidelines tailored to them personally.  The only members *I* consider to be that much of an important part of the board rarely if ever post links - or books even - and are free with their own ideas and knowledge.... Speaking of books, I am presuming that I am safe to recommend "MINE!" or "Bones..."  I promise I am not Donaldson or Clothier in disguise, nor am I receiving any kind of commission...

Chuffy - it wasn't tailored to anyone specifically...and book recommendations are always welcome.

Benedict

Chuffy - it wasn't tailored to anyone specifically...and book recommendations are always welcome.

If book recommendations are always welcome, then why is it not ok to give people the information on where to get them?  Most dog training specific books that I recommend are not carried at Barnes & Noble, etc., or even here at dog.com (although nothing's stopping you) and are  carried at retailers like dogwise, amazon, cleanrun, or other sites. 

If this board is leaning toward censorship again, I would like to register my feeling that it is a bad mistake to go down that road again.  Notice who is posting on this thread - do they not represent a certain point of view?  And, why are we pussyfooting around over who it is they'd like to silence.  And, why are live links any less dangerous than mute ones????

With respect, if I am now required to post a disclaimer, here it is: Please don't try any technique recommended on an internet message board at home before consulting a veterinarian, a professional trainer, a qualified (PhD or DVM) animal behaviorist, or other dog professional, about your dog's individual circumstance.  Maybe, instead of us all having to type so much, we could sticky a general disclaimer from the admin in the rules section...
 

 Nothing, absolutely nothing, would make me happier regarding this forum than never having to edit anyone again.  We all know that will never happen.  I am personally against censorship in general, but FOR a pleasant environment on this forum specifically.  That requires a delicate balance and occasionally going against my better judgement - in both directions - leaving posts intact that I'd prefer to see gone, and editing when I don't have an issue with something but I think the majority will.

I am perplexed as to why you say it's not ok to give info on where a certain book is carried.  To the best of my recollection I have never edited a link to Amazon, Clean Run or Dogwise.  For the record, I have no control over what is sold at the sales site, although presumably they'd take suggestions on board from me as they would any other customer.

I didn't make the decision on live links, and don't personally think they are any more dangerous than dead ones.  If this is something people feel strongly about I will discuss it with the higher ups, but I make no promises about the outcome.  

People here seem plenty capable of typing a lot, and are all concerned about dogs.  If that means including a disclaimer with every link to a training source in order to protect dogs out there...then that's what it means.  I hold absolutely no hope that every member here has read the rules linked to at the bottom or the posting guidelines I put up a few weeks ago.   

I dont see the problem.  If you have a link that you think is helpful, thats great as long as its PART of your response.  Book recommendations are fine.  Any one googling "mine! a guide to resource guarding in dogs" will find plenty of places that carry that book.  Where is the issue?  I like this guideline. JUST posting a link is not much of a contribution IMO. 

Benedict

I didn't make the decision on live links, and don't personally think they are any more dangerous than dead ones.  If this is something people feel strongly about I will discuss it with the higher ups, but I make no promises about the outcome.  

I thought live links or clickable links are not allowed in sigs.  I thought it was ok within the body of the post.  In posts, I have seen it done both ways.  Unless I missed it, I did not see the prohibition in the guide.

DPU

Benedict

I didn't make the decision on live links, and don't personally think they are any more dangerous than dead ones.  If this is something people feel strongly about I will discuss it with the higher ups, but I make no promises about the outcome.  

I thought live links or clickable links are not allowed in sigs.  I thought it was ok within the body of the post.  In posts, I have seen it done both ways.  Unless I missed it, I did not see the prohibition in the guide.

I assumed it was signatures being discussed with that reference. 

Benedict, thank you for clarifying because as I stated members are making their links within the post not clickable. 

This is off topic but I was wondering why some clickable links open up a new page link and some do not.  I always have to look to see if I need to use the 'back' key or if I can just red 'X' it.

DPU

I was wondering why some clickable links open up a new page link and some do not.

When you add a link in a post, there is the option of making it open in a new window or open in the current window. Unfortunately, the current window is default and people don't go to the trouble of selecting the option to make it open in a NEW window.