links to bad sites

Status
Not open for further replies.
Raccoon

Raccoon

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,161
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
Babymullet pointed out directly linking "to god hates furries .com" might lead to google searches of the url pointing here, and might add to the no. of links to them in general: bad things. http://www.adisc.org/forum/showthread.php?p=10136#post10136 So I must ask: what would Moo suggest about which, if any links should or should not be explicitly printed in text in posts?
 
Last edited:
Moo

Moo

ADISC Admin
Staff
Messages
5,584
Role
  1. Private
If you don't want to give a site extra coverage, type them out their address differently.
e.g. instead of typing : http://www.google.com
type: google.com
or better yet : google (.com)

Or, best of all, reconsider whether you should mention them at all.
Often, those who are full of hate lose power when the world ceases to know or care about them.
 
Raccoon

Raccoon

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,161
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
Moo said:
If you don't want to give a site extra coverage, type them out their address differently.
e.g. instead of typing : http://www.google.com
type: google.com
or better yet : google (.com)

Or, best of all, reconsider whether you should mention them at all.
Often, those who are full of hate lose power when the world ceases to know or care about them.
Click to expand...

There are cases when they should be mentioned. It is nice but naive to think that all people need to lose their mistrust or hate of us, or minorities in general is a well-reasoned explanation. I think if there are people out to get you you should know about them, so as to take precautions, be extra vigilant about security, and not be surprised if they choose you for their attacks. Many of these people operate from a flawed assumption that they are protecting children or that their religion (as they misinterpret it) commands their stilted view of morality. They are unlikely to change the views which are embedded in their psyches and which, frankly, I think they enjoy. These views give them a sense of community also.
 
link

link

Messages
1,240
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Carer
  3. Private
i could i lead to a bad web sight? i would never do something like that.
 
BitterGrey

BitterGrey

Est. Contributor
Messages
240
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
  3. Other
Raccoon said:
Babymullet asked me to not to directly link to god hates furries
Click to expand...

That was a good post about an important lesson, Raccoon. ( There once was a time when I thought all AB/DLs were trustworthy. Things have changed. )

However, I have to agree with BabyMullet and Moo. Sites like those will consider all publicity and attention good. Google will also consider all links as votes of support.
 
Last edited:
Raccoon

Raccoon

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,161
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
BitterGrey said:
That was a good post abut an important lesson, Raccoon. ( There once was a time when I thought all AB/DLs were trustworthy. Things have changed. )

However, I have to agree with BabyMullet and Moo. Site like those will consider all publicity and attention good. Google will also consider all links as votes of support.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your vote of support. Your "however" wasn't necessary because I agree with them too. As soon as Babymullet pointed out the problem I changed it; I thought it was important enough to ask Moo his opinion; and I am glad Bittergrey chose to comment. We now have it on good authority that we should be careful how we use links.

In this and the previous forum, I never saw any cautionary remarks about linking. The most dangerous mistakes are the ones you don't realize you are making.
 
Darkfinn

Darkfinn

Banned
Messages
3,676
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Incontinent
we could just ban links in posts altogether... other sites do it...
 
ayanna

ayanna

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,403
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Babyfur
Darkfinn said:
we could just ban links in posts altogether... other sites do it...
Click to expand...

That would eliminate the problem of people linking to 'bad sites' but what about if someone wanted to link to...say...Understanding Infantilism aka Bittergrey's site? Some people here might not be aware of the site's existence and thus a link to it would be welcome (and welcoming!)!

Sooooo I would say banning links all together is a little too extreme. I think we should all just ask ourselves "why am I posting this link?" I've posted links to the WIKI for instance...for the purpose of illustration in answering the question "Can one add pictures to the wiki?"...*thinks about creating that wiki when she comes back later...complete with screen shots and so on*

I'd say more but if I don't leave NOW I'll miss my bus...EEP!
 
Raccoon

Raccoon

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,161
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Diaperfur
My understanding is that it is only bad sites we should corrupt the link to eg xyz(.com) I am sure they must regularly google their own domain to see who their friends are or to see who is discussing them.
 
R

Ren

Est. Contributor
Messages
134
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
  2. Babyfur
Raccoon said:
Babymullet pointed out directly linking "to god hates furries .com" might lead to google searches of the url pointing here, and might add to the no. of links to them in general: bad things. http://www.adisc.org/forum/showthread.php?p=10136#post10136 So I must ask: what would Moo suggest about which, if any links should or should not be explicitly printed in text in posts?
Click to expand...

Wait there's a website called god hates furries?
Hahahaha!
people no longer have anything to do with their free time....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top