So - is it considered not kosher to include a link to a Web site as a Fluther answer?

lurking due to interest in this subject

I have done and do it all the time with no problem.

I’m not sure. Did you merely provide the link, or did you write down what the link said and provide the link as backup?

In my opinion, it is very rude to provide only a link as an answer. Then, in order to find the answer, the reader has to follow the link. The reader may not want to go off site. The reader may not want to risk whatever viruses and whatnot await at the other end of the link. The site might be NSFW.

I believe that responsible use of links requires us to explain what is contained in the link. We should do this in sufficient detail that a person can choose to go there or not, and also so that the reader can get all the information then need to answer the question without actually clicking the link.

If this is why they are moderating such answers, then this is an aspect of moderation that I actually approve of. But probably that’s not it. I and moderation are like oil and water. My idea of what is polite and other people’s ideas also don’t seem to match. But I can always hope for a first time.

I agree with @wundayatta sentiments and also think it is in good form on answers to factual demanding questions to provide an answer with a link to the source of your information.

That makes sense and could be where I tripped up but I would also like to know if the policy is effected by the Google issues.

I use links all the time but as @wundayatta says not usually as my full answer.

We will remove answers if links contain NSFW content not marked as such, and we also remove answers that boil down to “let me Google that for you” (even if they are not meant to be rude). Other than that, though, it is etiquette—and not the guidelines—that keeps people from just responding with links. After all, answering with a link might be appropriate in some cases. The so-called “Google problem” has nothing to do with it as far as I know.

I would note, however, that the link you gave yesterday doesn’t actually answer the question. Since the question was in General, that’s another reason to remove it.

I answer with links. I usually excerpt the most relevant text and sometimes I provide additional commentary.

It did answer the question of why he died; not what organ shut down which was in the details but I take your point. It did seem to me that factual articles were the way to go with that question.

I find the content modding to be wildly inconsistent at times though I fully admit to sometimes poking the bear. I also wish every moderation would come with an explanation in brackets, which sometimes they don’t.

Goddamn anti-penguin conspiracy I tell ya.

Need to start the Anti-Penguin Defamation League, huh!

@janbb But in this case, the actual question was in the details. It’s bad form to go by titles alone.

@dappled_leaves Every moderation does come with an explanation in parentheses. We have to choose a reason in every case (though, admittedly, one of them is “other”). Some old threads from before this system was in place might not have reasons given, but anything done recently should carry an explanation. The only possible exception I can think of is that the tool we use for the mass deletion of spam might not place ”(Spam)” next to every message. Or are you referring to the “other” option as unsatisfactory?

Most links are fine (barring spam, outright pornography or NSFW that isn’t marked), but anything that seems to say “You should have just Googled this” usually gets removed.

@SavoirFaire As I said in my details, I understood and was not pissed off but I did want some clarification on the policy re: links. Now it is clearer.

I do it all the time.

@janbb I know you’re not upset. I was just explaining.

@SavoirFaire If you are still following, here is an example of a recent question in which several responses moderated with no brackets. It certainly happens from time to time. I am going to guess that it had nothing to do with spam.

@dappled_leaves Thanks for that. Looking at the thread, I see explanations next to all of them. Logging out and into a non-moderator account, I see that some do not have explanations next to them. It appears that when we choose the “other” option, non-moderators do not see an explanation. I had not realized that before. If it helps, “other” is typically chosen when we are removing responses to other responses we have removed.

Interesting! Thanks for the explanation.

So… are all responses to modded responses automatically removed?

@dappled_leaves If you mean do they automatically disappear when we remove the original response, no. We have to do it ‘by hand’. But, yes it is our general policy to remove responses that refer to the moderated one. (Sometimes we miss ‘em, though.)