Subject:
|
Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:22:41 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@ctp.iwantnospam.comNOMORESPAM
|
Viewed:
|
767 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, lar@voyager.net (Larry Pieniazek) writes:
> > Auctions are ephemeral so this is not that big a deal in the long run.
>
> I was surprised how it actually adds up in the long run. There are a couple
> of reasons why it actually adds up: First, a hundred different people all
> linking from their eBay auctions, even if each lasts only for a week, still
> represents a flow of linkages with few ebbs. Second, a single popular
> auction (such as a recent 8880 supercar auction on eBay) can, all by itself,
> represent several megabytes of transfers as hundreds of curious onlookers
> load the page.
Whoops. Sorry, I did not state that very well. I realise the amount of
traffic is significant. Very significant. What I meant to say, let me
try again, was that the argument that the links are likely to change,
which is a good "utility" argument against (rather than a "principles"
argument against, see my many tirades in lugnet.ot.debate(1)) does not
work well for auctions because they are ephemeral. By the time the links
move, in most cases, the auction is over. Unless you actively move them
on a regular basis, that is. If you generate pages, tis easy to do.
So "not a big deal" means not a strong argument against doing so from
the linker's perspective. NOT that it's not a big deal costwise to you.
It is. And it's wrong. But I have found that "principles" arguments only
work with some people. Some people (and I consider them morally flawed,
but let's not go there) are only swayed by "utility" arguments ("what's
in it for me" arguments).
1 - example:
Principles argument - the marriage penalty (in US tax code) is wrong
because it discriminates against the married, government should not
favor one group over another in its policies, government is morally
wrong to try to incent one lawful and peacable behaviour over another,
it should not be making value judgements.
Utility argument - the marriage penalty is wrong because it disincents
people from being married, and married people are more productive, and
more stable, than those that merely live together without being married,
and therefore we can get the same amount of government for a lower tax
rate, which is overall better for the economy, meaning we're all better
off because of it.
Those are examples. Please do not debate the marriage penalty here. If
you must, go to off-topic.debate to do so. Followups not set there
because this argument is obviously correct to me.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
| (...) I was surprised how it actually adds up in the long run. There are a couple of reasons why it actually adds up: First, a hundred different people all linking from their eBay auctions, even if each lasts only for a week, still represents a flow (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
