h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We do not allow URLs to external websites to be included in Conversation postings, but we do allow them in Guide Entries, so if you want to link (say) to your own personal website, please do so from your own Guide Entries, and preferrably your Personal Space. Any links to websites we consider unsuitable will be removed - if you are considering adding a URL to an entry, please make sure that it adds value to the subject of your entry, and isn't, for example, purely commercial. Unsuitable sites would include those with racist material, pornographic or sexually explicit material, anything which encourages illegal activites, material which infringes copyright, or sites which plug or promote commercial products or services.

______________

So, if for examples' sake, I wanted to post in a journal that "I've just read the most incredible thing on www.#1stupidthings.com and here's what I think about it," that is not allowed? I mean, I totally understand that there are a ton of objectionable sites out there, but what if I need to site the site (as it were ) as a reference in what I'm talking about?

Journal entries are journal entries--ie. what I'm thinking about at the time I write it, and if a link to a specific (hopefully static) page gives more background, is this acceptable? I don't intend to advertise for other sites at all, but sometimes it's necessary. y'know? I'd hate to have to tiptoe around in fear...

Ooh, how embarrassing. Should be "cite the site". Stoopid homophones...

Currently, that isn't allowed (recheck the house rules for the reason).

In addition, putting #1 in the middle of a URL, or not using http, or indeed putting a URL to a non-existant website - they don't cut it either.

You can put a link to an entry, and put the URL in the entry. That's currently the only workaround that, uh, works.

However, check the house rules - this is "under review", so it may not always be this way.

Yeah, I know. I was just hoping for a non-legalese translation. Hopefully they'll loosen up on it sometime.

I thought "site the site" meant "sight the site"

I'd say that it'd be almost impossible to set out explicit & detailed examples in advance. Also, of course, an explicit list would lead to claims of "but my post wasn't exactly on the list".

It's certainly a lot clearer now that the hows & whys of moderation have been set out.

;^)#
Incite the site with the sight of an external URL cite

I'm a little bothered about not being able to post a URL in a conversation. I've posted many URLs for research purposes to help others write articles. Obviously, whoever I'm posting to can go out and find the site for themselves, but it's a lot easier if somebody who knows what they're doing can find the site and post it.

- Lentilla

One answer might be to say "search for XXX on google", where XXX is a long string which only results in a single hit which is that site. It's a long way round, though. And it dates whenever the site updates its keywords and stuff, leaving the conversation unintelligible for later readers.

Don't try this at home though - Mark/Peta still haven't clarified exactly what they think a URL is, and the odds are looking good that it won't be what everyone else thinks a URL is...

After all, in many ways a single word is sufficient to point someone to a site, Almost all sites can be referred to with the .com etc at the end... it's just that it can't be made clickable and it can't have extended bits at the end (the path and parameters). After all... a certain infamous domain in the .cx hierachy would be considered unsuitable by most, but would be difficult to filter generically and not on a case-by-case situation.
I feel the towers are doing the best they can... the beeb's rules are incredibly stringent and difficult to work with for user-created content. The best they can do is say 'please don't post URLs'... and if they have to copy and paste the URL it's in keeping with the writing, in word if not in spirit.

Don't be sympathetic! Not only does the rule stink, it is completely
wrong-headed. Shall I list the reasons? (that's a rhetorical
question, and I ought not to have asked.)

1. The web is hypertext, and hypertext by definition has the ability
to link back and forth between different texts. Limit that ability,
and it's not much of a web site.

2. Granted, the BBC cannot control what is not on their site, but
neither can they control what is outside their office windows. Should
they shutter all the windows and doors so people in their buildings
cannot be offended by what they might see by casually glancing out of
one? It's nonsense in real life, and nonsense on the web.

3. The BBC cannot control what is in non-web references either. Will
they therefore ban references to traditional texts, speeches, music,
non-BBC documentaries, and other offensive material? They can start
here - "Hey guys, did you see the latest Penthouse (or Mother Jones,
or Wired, or the Koran, or CNN)?" What if I use the ISSN or ISBN
number? Does that make it worse?

4. Every other major provider of a discussion service holds that they
are not responsible for the individual communications of their
customers. And here is the BBC saying that they ARE responsible for
their customers simply *referring* to other 3rd-party works! It is both legally
unsound and a step beyond what anyone has ever argued about (although
my perspective of the legality is based on being American, and I know
British libel and slander laws are far stricter). Most sites concerned with this just have a disclaimer page that says something like "you are now leaving the BBC site. The BBC has no control over the content etc." For an example see the Honda web site, and follow a link to a local dealer's web site.

4.5 Oops. Obeying the rule is difficult, and contrary to natural tendencies.

5. We can link anyway (as they have pointed out, by linking to a guide entry), so they are not stopping any unwanted behavior (or behaviour) by implementing the rule.

6. Everything that everyone has mentioned previously here and elsewhere (useful or necessary tool, personal expression, etc.).

7. Technically, we can still do it. I've tried and the URL gets posted and is still clickable, which means someone has to read every posting and delete the links. It does not make much sense to have a rule that is not enforced right from the start, if you are to have it at all.



(My next rant will be on the topic of pictures.)

1. I agree that the banning of links in fora is a severe detriment. I think TPTB have underestimated just what effect this will have.

2. The BBC aren't providing the view out of their window, so the analogy isn't great...

3. Yep. For some reason it seems that URLs are getting different treatment to EVERYTHING else, and this makes exactly no sense. I agree that this is absolutly nonsensical.

4. "Please note that the BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed." - the BBC are disclaiming responsibility, as is sensible, as you suggest. But they still don't want to have a link to seenakedpicturesofsmallchildrenhere.com on their website, and I can't say I blame them.

4.5 I agree that the banning of 'directions' to websites (such as saying 'search in google') is dumb. To my mind, such things should be allowed. Other parts of the BBC follow this line. For example, discussions of dodgy stuff on the web often say "searching for 'tellytubies sex orgy' in a search engine brought up 42,356 hits".

5. Indeed you can - but it's awkward, so it'll discourage it, so less links will be posted, so the moderators will have less work to do. It does make some sense in terms of reducing workload.

7. Technically, we can for about an hour, and then the moderators will see your post and remove the URL. Someone does indeed have to read every post and delete the links. Such people are called moderators, or censors if you don't like what they do, or 'square brackets' if you're me...

--

Incidentally, the latest Penthouse was pretty dire, though the blond on page 6 was worth a second glance...

There's an entry on Carnival in Germany which /had/ links to external sites. Those sites contained imagery of Shrove Monday Parades, sleigh races, dancing veggie mongers and lots more activities which take place out in the open, for everybody to see. I don't know whether it was a moderator or the SubEd who took them out *completely*, nor can I find anything on these referenced sites which would violate the T&C.

Could it be that some sites were written in German? Is foreign language banned even if referenced to? But then, others of these references sites were written in English, and their links were also taken out. I'm beginning to assert paranoia around here.

Guten Tag. [<- testing]

If you got to the BBC news website (I wonder if they'd remove their own url if I posted it here - now that *would* be stupid), there are links to related sites on just about every news story there, including one I looked at this morning which showed several pictures of Taleban executions in Afghanistan. In long shot, but still not for the squeamish. Wherever they post any links, there's always the disclaimer about "not being responsible for the content of outside websites".
A community like this uses urls all the time so that one person can show a friend what they found/saw/like/don't like etc, and to simply remove them is going to take out an important aspect of a web community, and something unique to the web. I mean, if you read a book, you can lend it to a friend afterwards or suggest they go out and buy it; if you see a tv show, you can tell a friend what you thought of it but you can't show it to them unless you taped it; but with the web you can tell a friend exactly where to go to get the information you just got, or get the webcast you're listening to right now.
I kind of see how the BBC has to avoid any kind of advertising, and maybe posting a commercial website url could be construed as such, but I think that's a pretty long shot, if for instance, I want to show someone what I just bought, or say "This is a great product or service, I think it's just what you've been looking for all these past months".

Goshoogoshoogosh, who had some pretty innoffensive urls removed yesterday.

The BBC acts really stupid in the H2G2 case in my opinion.
When they want H2G2 to be a really nice web community, ok then they have to face the consequences. I really liked H2G2 bbbc (before BBC *g*), but now I don't like to be censored...
The BBC should stop this and allow us to do what we want to. An url hurts nobody. Or H2G2 should get another partner who is less silly. There surely are other webservers with space for our community, are there?

Eresthor

> "There surely are other webservers with space for our community, are there?"

And how were you proposing to pay them? Usage fees? *lots* of banner ads? pay-for-favourable-entries? heavy corporate linking? Selling shares in Mark Moxon's beard?

>Or H2G2 should get another partner who is less silly

h2g2 is owned by the BBC - the choise isn't h2g2's.

On an earlier point - the external links on other BBC sites (eg news) are posted by BBC staff who have been paid to check them. It's also my understanding that those links get checked by editors as well as authors.

;^)#