On 2012-03-02 19:58, Runemage wrote:
This has been raised in another discussion but I think it's a topic worthy of its own thread.

The trouble with posting links without any description is that no-one knows which part is relevant to the discussion. Then they just don't bother to read or watch and the original point - which could have been important - is lost.

If posters could say something like 'Have a look at this clip from 4 mins 30 to 6 mins, it illustrates the point I'm making.' perhaps it would be more helpful.

At times, people link to film-length videos, often well over an hour, without any explanation of which parts are relevant. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a limited monthly download, so even if I had time to watch all the clips, I wouldn't be able to. Similarly, links to websites often present us with several pages of text, it's not feasible to expect someone to wade through all of that to guess what's relevant to the forum discussion. Who has the time to do that?

Perhaps we all need to post a short synopsis then add the link so if anyone wants to follow it up in more detail then they can.

What do you all think, how can we improve this so it suits everyone?

Rune

On 2012-03-02 19:58, Runemage wrote:
This has been raised in another discussion but I think it's a topic worthy of its own thread.

The trouble with posting links without any description is that no-one knows which part is relevant to the discussion. Then they just don't bother to read or watch and the original point - which could have been important - is lost.

If posters could say something like 'Have a look at this clip from 4 mins 30 to 6 mins, it illustrates the point I'm making.' perhaps it would be more helpful.

At times, people link to film-length videos, often well over an hour, without any explanation of which parts are relevant. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a limited monthly download, so even if I had time to watch all the clips, I wouldn't be able to. Similarly, links to websites often present us with several pages of text, it's not feasible to expect someone to wade through all of that to guess what's relevant to the forum discussion. Who has the time to do that?

Perhaps we all need to post a short synopsis then add the link so if anyone wants to follow it up in more detail then they can.

What do you all think, how can we improve this so it suits everyone?

Rune

On 2012-03-02 22:18, Andy B wrote:
I hope you fully 'absorbed' (sorry) all my papers on the RF interactions with the human head, I shall be asking questions later

I didn' t know land based ISPs still had a 'monthly allowance'. M obiles fair enough - you are naturally limited on them by when your head starts melting - but that is so 'last century' - who is that?

On 2012-03-02 20:24, jonm wrote:
It's a good point. Ideally the reason for looking a link should should take no more than 10 second to digest. The link itself should take no more than 30 seconds to understand and should occupy no more than 120 seconds of time if it's of interest to the reader?

It's very difficult to assess what should be in a link. I use them myself but, as a general rule, only if it's a wiki link or when I've written the link myself (saves re-authoring the thing for a different operating environment if you've already written it up). Should different criteria be applied to self authored links?

[The only drawback with wiki for links is it only contains the majority Party Line consensus and won't give oxygen to any alternative viewpoints , hence particularly in this forum, it's therefore not generally accepted as an unbiased or accurate source. However, if it's a subject you know about and the wiki information that you are linking to is actually accurate, (there is some!) then by all means please say so.