Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MadMAxJr]

w3.org has pretty much everything anyone needs ever, but is a bastard to actually navigate and find worthwhile information on.

But the "how to make a link" page is here.




Yes, I did that intentionally.

So you have quality issues with a website that tells you how to put quality into your content?

[Thad]

So now we have a whole fucking thread about this, because apparently we'd rather do that than just take the requisite seconds to write a fucking sentence describing where a link goes.

See, that feels completely right and intuitive to me. As it is, the actual hyperlink is roughly at the same moment in the sentence as a finger pointing motion would be in normal conversation. If I tell someone "main street is that way", I point during "that way", not during "main street". Unless I point for the duration of the entire sentence, but that's apparently also a Web Design No-No. Yay for artificial and arbitrary schisms between meatspace and cyberspace!

Why the hell would you be giving relative directions on the internet in the first place?

What he said.  Notice how VRML never really caught on?

It's not artificial or arbitrary.  THERE ARE NO DIRECTIONS ON THE INTERNET.  THINGS ARE WHERE THEY ARE.  And you don't need location-specific qualifiers like "here" or "this" because THE LINK ITSELF IS LOCATION-SPECIFIC.  At best, it's redundant, like "where at"; at worst, it's completely devoid of any descriptive information and just dumps you into something with no explanation.

(Actually, quick qualifier: there ARE directions on the Internet, in terms of up and down.  But they're only used for relative links, which are not what we're talking about here.)

Thad, I understand you're irritation about linking styles.

I would like you to stop taking your cues from Guildenstern.  And the time at which I would like you to stop it is now.

That's a valid pet peeve, although I hope you don't think that anybody's under any obligation to cater to your preferences.

They are if they don't want me to bitch about how they can't write a fucking hyperlink.

That said, web design standards have nothing to do with posting on a message board, and no amount of Simpsons quotes is going to make it so.  Stop pressuring people to learn fucking W3 standards as a prerequisite to posting cock jokes.

Saying there's no overlap between writing a link on a website and writing a link on a website that is also a messageboard is fucking asinine.  We're not talking about stylesheets here.  We're not talking about PHP formatting.  (Well, not directly.)  We're talking about how "CLICK HERE" is a fucking worthless piece of information that tells the reader absolutely nothing about what he is clicking on.  There is not some magical barrier you step through when you log onto a messageboard that makes that fact suddenly no longer true.

w3.org has pretty much everything anyone needs ever, but is a bastard to actually navigate and find worthwhile information on.

So you have quality issues with a website that tells you how to put quality into your content?

No.  They just have a hell of a lot of information, and it becomes cumbersome to sort.  They're a (the) Web standards site, not a search engine.

[McDohl]

What he said.  Notice how VRML never really caught on?

VRML enjoys widespread use[citation needed],

[François]

Saying there's no overlap between writing a link on a website and writing a link on a website that is also a messageboard is fucking asinine.

There may be overlap, but there are differences.

If I'm designing a website for a specific purpose, and I care about whether people click my links or not, sure, there are standards that should be upheld in order to facilitate that purpose.

But when I post a blind link in a forum thread called "game news dump", we're talking about something else. The only reason I even posted was because I hadn't seen anything on the subject on major game news sites; my first thought was "this should have been made a long time ago", so that's the topic I advertised and delivered on. I did it quickly, with my conversational instincts still turned on, and with all the forethought and consideration commonly expected on a site where 47 stacked Eiffel Towers regularly pass by without anyone batting an eye.

[Thad]

So you're comparing your link style to something deliberately obnoxious and thread-derailing?

Anyway.  I only mentioned it as being listed in every Web design book ever because you tried to tell me I'm the only person who complains about this.  Given that several other people have already chimed in to say I'm right, it's sort of a moot point anyway.

[Brentai]

Thad, I understand you're irritation about linking styles.

I would like you to stop taking your cues from Guildenstern.  And the time at which I would like you to stop it is now.

Unless you're referring to my typo, I can only assume you now believe that trying to be reasonable and recognize that you have a point is trolling.  Please stop.

Saying there's no overlap between writing a link on a website and writing a link on a website that is also a messageboard is fucking asinine.

That is what I am saying.  You may disagree, but think about it this way:

This, here, what I am doing right now, is not building a website.  It is also not building a website that happens to be a messageboard.  It is me, and you, and Zed, and freakin' Guild, using a website functionality to have a conversation, in whatever style we feel like as long as it's fairly appropriate.  If we want to use the online equivalent of throwing a newspaper on your desk and saying "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?", that's a little bit annoying (I'm well aware, but I wanted people to have to click the link) but not worth a crusade.

I can't - and in fact I don't - blame you for bitching about it a little, but taking it to the point of:

I've never seen anyone else complain about this, outside of a shock site or rick roll context.

"I've never read three pages into a Web design book, therefore there must be something wrong with you."

is fucking arrogant.  ZedPower doesn't do web design and is under no obligation to make his posts on a message board pretty anyway.  And, he has never had a complaint about his posting style except from exactly ONE person, you.  Now Zed's pretty awesome and is totally willing to play ball with you, but don't you think it's a little bit unreasonable to always expect this?

I guess what I'm saying is

We can post any   way we like here.

[sei]

And so came the Nth rise of tiny text.

[Brentai]

Oh hell YES.

[Niku]

Hey, I made VRML sites once!

I wonder if they're still floating around in the ether.

[François]

So you're comparing your link style to something deliberately obnoxious and thread-derailing?

Yes that's exactly what I said. It's obvious that my basic, spur-of-the-moment attempt to convey to the forums the fact that a multiplayer Darwinia was on the way is actually a thinly veiled assault on the integrity of

OH WAIT

 

I'm actually saying that the bar is very low and that my alleged faux-pas clears it with room to spare.

Besides, if the target of my link had been of interest to you we wouldn't even be here. Or is "good IT story" that much more descriptive than "long overdue game news"?

We need a "standard" emoticon so I can put two side by side.

[Thad]

Unless you're referring to my typo,

I was.  Given the context, I assumed it was deliberate.  We'll chalk that one up to coincidence, then.

That is what I am saying.  You may disagree, but think about it this way:

This, here, what I am doing right now, is not building a website.  It is also not building a website that happens to be a messageboard.  It is me, and you, and Zed, and freakin' Guild, using a website functionality to have a conversation, in whatever style we feel like as long as it's fairly appropriate.  If we want to use the online equivalent of throwing a newspaper on your desk and saying "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?", that's a little bit annoying (I'm well aware, but I wanted people to have to click the link) but not worth a crusade.

There's no fucking crusade.  I made a single-sentence remark and you and Zed (and NOBODY ELSE) felt the need to stretch it out to two pages of arguing.

You slam a newspaper down and say "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?" and I'm going to tell you it's fucking annoying and ask you to explain what the hell it is you're talking about or quit wasting my time.  Which is, in fact, what I did.  I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

I can't - and in fact I don't - blame you for bitching about it a little, but taking it to the point of:

I've never seen anyone else complain about this, outside of a shock site or rick roll context.

"I've never read three pages into a Web design book, therefore there must be something wrong with you."

is fucking arrogant.

No, it's not.  Obliviously suggesting that this basic, fundamental understanding of how to make a useful link is something totally unique to me is ignorant.  The fact that he has never noticed anyone else make this complaint is his problem, not mine.

You want to disagree with me?  Great.  But don't act like I'm just making shit up.

You think the reference to a Web design book was a poor one?  Fine, now that I've got their opinions on record, I can point to Burrito, Arc, Kazz, and Constantine instead.  Point stands: it's not just me.

ZedPower doesn't do web design and is under no obligation to make his posts on a message board pretty anyway.  And, he has never had a complaint about his posting style except from exactly ONE person, you.  Now Zed's pretty awesome and is totally willing to play ball with you, but don't you think it's a little bit unreasonable to always expect this?

No.

No more than to get people to stop using tiny text ('sup Sei) or misusing spoiler tags.

And, as in those cases, if this becomes prevalent and irritating enough, I'm willing to edit posts myself to make it stop.  But I'd rather people just pay attention to what they're doing.

So you're comparing your link style to something deliberately obnoxious and thread-derailing?

Yes that's exactly what I said. It's obvious that my basic, spur-of-the-moment attempt to convey to the forums the fact that a multiplayer Darwinia was on the way is actually a thinly veiled assault on the integrity of

OH WAIT

 

It's not a strawman.  You did in fact compare your link style to something deliberately obnoxious and thread-derailing.  That may not have been what you meant to highlight with the comparison, but I find it apt and called attention to it.

I'm actually saying that the bar is very low and that my alleged faux-pas clears it with room to spare.

I can do a "block images" on the Eiffel Tower pic and never have to see it again.

Besides, if the target of my link had been of interest to you we wouldn't even be here.

Or if it hadn't been the second link in the span of five posts to do it.  (At least Brent's linked to an URL that had the headline in it.)  There are plenty of variables that play into whether I decide to let something slide or say something about it: the frequency with which I'm seeing it, whether it's a particular pet peeve, my Internet connection being bogged-down enough that loading external links is a hassle, the possibility that somebody (usually Guild) is doing it deliberately just to annoy me (see top of post), who the fuck pissed in my Frankenberry this morning...there's a whole world of considerations.

Point being, I meant it as a single-sentence crack, and I can't believe this is actually a fucking thread now.

Or is "good IT story" that much more descriptive than "long overdue game news"?

We need a "standard" emoticon so I can put two side by side.

So there you have it: in the interest of fairness, I now have to complain about insufficiently descriptive links EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMEBODY POSTS ONE.

Oh boy, Zed, did you ever just call the wrong bluff.

[Detonator]

I think there are two major facts I have gleaned from this thread.

1. Bad hyperlinking on a forum isn't a huge deal.

2. Thad is right.

Zed, somehow you think that fact #1 invalidates fact #2.  It's not a big deal, sure, but proper hyperlinking is a convenience to everyone involved. 

The newspaper analogy isn't quite right because giving a paper to one friend is different than posting a link to dozens of readers.  Ideally you know your one friend well enough to know that he will find your newpaper article interesting, and your friend knows you well enough to trust your judgement when pointing out an interesting article.  This is not the case on an internet forum where not everyone will care about your link.  This is about manners, not any written "rules".  You've been around us for years, Zed, so we should assume you respect us enough not to waste our time with vague links that may or may not interest us.  So maybe this never even occured to you, but arguing that you are somehow right is self-defeating.

Thad is continuing the argument because you refuse to see what you did wrong and hide behind the fact that it's not a big deal.  And Thad will continue to argue this because this is his hobby.  Either admit your fault or stop posting in this thread altogether, trying to downplay the seriousness by arguing about it does not work, it just makes you look more desperate to be right.

This has been Arguing With Thad 101.  I should start a wiki.

Side note to Thad:  Don't look in the Videodrome thread.  Posting Youtube videos with no context is just as bad.  I know it's a "general interesting video" thread, but I'd still like a brief description before investing up to ten minutes of my time watching something.

[Thad]

Thanks, Det; as usual you are the voice of reason.

This has been Arguing With Thad 101.  I should start a wiki.

We used to have that Newbie Guide which was pretty much the same thing.

Side note to Thad:  Don't look in the Videodrome thread.

I usually don't.

[MadMAxJr]

Either we need a rules thread or just a simple 'Beware of Thad' image posted somewhere.

[Royal☭]

Either we need a rules thread or just a simple 'Beware of Thad' image posted somewhere.

Be careful of what ground you tread.

[sei]

Lest Thad's treads be careful to have ground you.

Really, we don't need another newbie instructions thread for everyone to ignore.

[François]

Okay. So.

1. Thanks, Det.

2. My link was in a format that is considered bad form in two separate ways, one of with which I agree with (lack of descriptivity), one of which I disagree with (position in sentence).

3. I apologize for the first reason and will endeavour to avoid repeating this mistake in the future.

4. Nothing good would come of further discussion of the second factor; fortunately the associated inconvenience is close to zero.

5. Arguing with Thad is great exercise and I was long overdue. Some do it FF-style and restart from their last save, but I do it DW-style and get to keep all my exp, all my items, and half my gold. And I stashed most of it!
5b. Dude, you implied ill will on my part by emphasizing a position you knew I did not hold. That's close enough. Or at least, it's not up to your usual standards of intellectual class. Are things okay at home, man? I'm here if you need to talk.

[Brentai]

I think there are two major facts I have gleaned from this thread.

1. Bad hyperlinking on a forum isn't a huge deal.

2. Thad is right.

That's what I said.  Just in the reverse order.

Come to think of it, I think my reaction to 50-75% of what Thad says - everything - boils down to this:

1. You're right.
2. I don't care.

If there's a clever image macro of that with Ichigo in it, then we're all set.

[Thad]

5b. Dude, you implied ill will on my part by emphasizing a position you knew I did not hold.

All right, I should have probably dropped the word "deliberately".

[Royal☭]

And from that point on nobody ever did anything bad ever.

THE END