Subject:
|
Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Apr 2000 02:57:08 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
458 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Dan:
> > what about using up their bandwidth?
>
> I don't feel the least bit bad about using peoples bandwidth,
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?
> and I would be using more of their bandwidth if I didn't link
> directly to the relevant resource.
>
> The whole idea with publishing something on the web is that
> people should read it. If I link to a resource I just help
> the publisher getting more readers (and I would actually
> expect him to think that it is nice - even though I hear that
> being /.'ed can be a bit hard).
But what if the publisher wants that particular resource to be presented in the
fashion that the publisher wants. Why was it OK (even way way more than OK) for
Todd to serve up the frowney face instead of a picture when people deep linked
to the Pause DB? Sounds like you think it wasn't?
I am not trying to pick a fight, exactly, but I *am* curious as to why you
think it's OK to just wantonly help yourself to resources that you don't pay
for in ways that the owner of then doesn't approve of.
> But until I see an example that demonstrates the opposite, I
> will assume that deep linking always _is_ fine.
See above. Lugnet images are not to be deep linked.
> .no.automatic.lugnet.sigs.yet
'Twould be nice 'wunnit?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: so-called "deep-linking" ruled okay
|
| 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)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
