 | | so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Matthew Miller
|
| | | Well, I for one am glad to see this: (URL). While it may be impolite, linking to something deep within a website is not illegal. (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Excellent. Thanks for posting this! --Todd (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | Matthew: (...) Nice to hear that the web can continue to work in the US too. Why do you write that it may be impolite to link directly to a page? I find it most impolite _not_ to link directly to the relevant page. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | (...) One reason is that it could possibly by-pass any relevant disclaimers that the owner of the web site puts on the front page. Are you still bound to the agreement made when you click "I agree" if you never see that page? Ben Roller (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | Ben: (...) A website with "click agree pages" that can be bypassed by something as simple as a bookmark are defect, and nobody in their sane mind would ever admit having seen such a "click agree page". The world wide web works by URL's, and it is a (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Because it might actually be impolite! :) (Matthew didn't say that it was -always- impolte.) I can think of a several cases where it would be (IMHO) impolite to the owner of the site: 1. Where the site specifically asks for it not to occur. (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) A clarification on this one: usually the point of such pages is to preload data for following pages, or maybe to do some autodetection code and not worry about it later. So while linking past this may seem like you're doing people a favor, you (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Well, if you link directly to things deep within a site, you're not really respecting the user experience the site designer had in mind. That may or may not be impolite. (In fact, I'd argue that on a well designed site, it probably isn't.) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | Matthew: (...) A web page is supposed to be able to stand alone (of cause with all its links). If it can't, the site designer has misunderstood his medium (IMNSHO). (...) Probably illegal, but since the author doesn't seem to pretend that the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) I think a web SITE is supposed to be able to stand alone... A page is just a part of it - it could be only one frame out of a complete frameset... (...) I think Matt was refering to the quote at the bottom, shamelessly stolen from (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | Dan: (...) I disagree! (and I think we will have to leave it at that) (...) That is a part of the error in the FRAME construction. (...) Then I will consider to drop the "probably". (...) The question is when it is abuse... Todd has the images on (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) how so? should I put in every page in every frameset a check to make sure I'm still within it? I'm not sure I understand what you mean here... (...) what about using up their bandwidth? (...) I'm not saying it's never ok - in a lot of cases, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | Dan: (...) The HTML construct with the FRAMESET and FRAME elements is a serious mistake that Netscape forced unto W3C even though it doesn't fit with the design of the web. (...) I don't feel the least bit bad about using peoples bandwidth, and I (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) while true - at least then they get to generate revenue, or attract to the rest of the site. If you use pause DB pics in your ebay auction (for instance), you are abuseing the fact that the pics are up there. (...) people should read what you (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | | | Dan: (...) If they make the pages with links to the rest of the site, then that shouldn't be the least bit difficult. And I can't see how a "cover page" can generate more revenue than a page inside the site. (...) If you use Pause DB images alone, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Yet for things like Quotes 'R' Us, it makes a lot of sense. Why reload the entire page when all you want is a new quote? (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek) !
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Surely you don't mean this to be true in general, right? Else you are OK with spam, since, after all, it's just using up bandwidth, right? (...) But what if the publisher wants that particular resource to be presented in the fashion that the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | Larry: (...) Not in general, but by directing readers to interesting material. I wouldn't want people to _waste_ bandwidth, but I find that when there is something good on the web, then as many people as possible (of those who are interested) should (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) Less shamelessly now, btw -- the page maintainer has made a more obvious credit to Q'R'U, and I'm okay with that if he is. (See: (URL)). (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Assuming they didn't ask your permission first, I'd say grabbing your quotes is kinda rude. Except for the existence of your uncopyright page, which pretty much allows anyone to do what they want. But still, professional sites should have (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
