Tech: donotlink.it

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 11:25 PM

Usually you can disable your ad blockers if you really want to read the article, though I often look around, as DaveRo did, to see if it is available elsewhere. I am a subscriber to the Washington Post so I don't see that paywall any more but it used to drive me nuts when it was their own content that wasn't published anywhere else. As an Amazon Prime member I got a free six month trial and then it's $4 a month, so it's one of the most affordable around.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 11:29 AM

Couldn't this be used to prevent customers to reaching one's competitors and to keep voters from reaching the site of a candidate I don't like?

I see real problems here.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: DaveRo
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 11:27 AM

Stilly River Sage wrote: Blocking advertisements isn't what prevents you from reading the Washington Post...

Well, it was preventing me following your link at the time: screenshot.

Yes, I know I can go into private browsing (or clear cookies etc) and select 'free access' (which requires me to promise to accept adverts!) and then enter your link ... but it's a faff. I tend to stick to the NYT - which has a sensible limit of articles I can read without jumping through hoops.

Did you see his earlier article?
Google Chrome has become surveillance software. It’s time to switch.
(Courtesy of the Denver Post.)

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 10:59 AM

What did you think I said?

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 09:35 AM

Blocking advertisements isn't what prevents you from reading the Washington Post, they have a robust paywall (unless you go in and clear out their cookies each time you've read your four free articles).

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 04:02 AM

It was reported yesterday that Google had tightened up its incognito mode to make it impossible for a website to tell whether a visitor was using it. That should help. Subscription media that offer a free trial before the paywall goes up (like most newspapers) aren't happy because that means they can't count how many free goes you've had.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: DaveRo
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 02:36 AM

If, like me, you can't read the Washingtin Post website because you block adverts, you'll find other links to the article SRS referred to here.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Mr Red
Date: 01 Aug 19 - 02:19 AM

I don't see the point. If you dislike a site , why go to it at all?

seems perfectly clear to me. As outlined above.

If you want to point out some egregious mendacity/stupidity like the crap that flies around about Brexshit, you can show people who would wish to know what is being said in their name, yet not add any advantage to the perpetrators.

FWIW I never "like" etc Fakebook posts that aren't generated by family and friends themselves. The cute cats are trawling for info on you, like "what was your first pet's name?" (banking passwords?), and "solve this puzzle" - amusement hiding data collection. I may respond to the latter with "clickbait", so if there are data on me it logs me as a "outlier/wary" type.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Jul 19 - 10:14 PM

I'll post this here and let people consider what next they will do to try to protect their privacy.

I found your data. It’s for sale. By Geoffrey A. Fowler

"Companies using Chrome and Firefox extensions to collect your browser data are putting your privacy at risk. The Washington Post's Geoffrey A. Fowler explains."

He was interviewed on Fresh Air today.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:36 PM

DaveRo - yeah.. that makes sense..

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: DaveRo
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 01:20 PM

The idea is that the 'right wing heavy mob' want to post a link to a disgusting site, such as the Grauniad, so instead of posting a link to
https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentisfree/2017/jul/19/the-guardian-view-on-bbc-pay-transparency-right-thing-wrong-reason
they post this link
https://donotlink.it/nlPq

I'm suggesting that the target be made clear, eg
This absurd piece in the Garuniad...
or
https://donotlink.it/nlPq (Guraniad website)

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:45 PM

DaveRo - as I understand, I'd use it to copy a link provided in BS by the right wing heavy mob,
then paste it at donutlink to generate a link I'd prefer to use which won't add to the dodgy target sites click count...

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: DaveRo
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 12:39 PM

There are two metrics - rankings - here, and they're potentially in conflict.

Firstly, the position of a site in search results - i.e. how high up a site appears - can be affected by the number of sites that link to it. That's the effect that donotlink.it reduces. It's not the only factor that that affects a site search ranking.

Secondly, a site's 'page views' ranking - i.e. how many people actually go there - as measured by Alexa and others. This has a big effect on how much a site can charge advertisers. It also affects search ranking.

So the question is - if people use donotlink.it in their posts will it cause more people or fewer to visit the target site? Those who wouldn't normally click on a link to the Express, say, will end up there, increasing their page views and revenue (a tiny bit). And if they detest the site too that'll piss them off. People, like me, who would want a good reason for clicking an obfuscated link will not click it and will treat future posts by the same author with suspicion.

So if you use it, tell people where it goes.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 11:05 AM

I doubt you can do such an effective job from within a browser, though it might help. You'd need to do a feature-by-feature comparison. Donotlink seem to be pretty open about how their service works.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:50 AM

Does chrome incognito browser work as effectively, or do the clicks still count for vile websites...??

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:48 AM

Just consider how frequently the the gang of right wing diehards down in BS post links to contextual material
they insist we need to read to fully understand their arguments..

As individuals we can adopt a default position of ignoring every link they post,
or if we are curious to investigate & identify the sources of their mean minded ideas, we might want to read further..

So yes, this donotlink might come in useful...

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:37 AM

Jack nailed it on the value of the site - giving oxygen to objectionable sites happens if you try to discuss them by sharing a link. And it skews the search results for your browsers after that.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:25 AM

I meant to add that I what understood the purpose of the add-on to be, was to make visible any malicious link masked by a tinyurl. I made the assumption, without actually trying, it would also show the original target of the donotlink URL.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:21 AM

The Firefox add-on Peter suggests would frustrate the whole point of donotlink if the long URL were subsequently used by Firefox to connect to the site - is it? No problem if it's simply displayed to the user.

Jack, my understanding has always been it only shows the original link when you hover over the short link. I may be mistaken though.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 10:12 AM

Totally redundant when posting a link on Mudcat. Just include a NOFOLLOW attribute.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:32 AM

The Firefox add-on Peter suggests would frustrate the whole point of donotlink if the long URL were subsequently used by Firefox to connect to the site - is it? No problem if it's simply displayed to the user.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:27 AM

Suppose you want to discuss racist propaganda initiatives on the web. Do you want to help the racists get more search engine exposure every time you post something that condemns them?

I found this video via Google, using search terms that in themselves didn't suggest anything bigoted (not difficult in this area, the racists tag on to all sorts of content). But I didn't click on it myself - I pasted the link into donotlink.it, let them generate an indirect link, and clicked on that to load the video.

https://donotlink.it/9eOo

The name of the organization behind that crap is truly disgusting, given what they actually stand for. I'm not going to allude to it in any way that Google can make sense of.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:21 AM

'A disadvantage if that sort of link - and of link-shorteners in general - is that the reader cannot know where the link goes, by hovering over it or whatever facility the device provides.'

As another slightly digital paranoid, I use a handy little Firefox add-on that shows you the original URL the short link wants to send you to: Long URL please

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:12 AM

I don't see the point. If you dislike a site , why go to it at all?

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 09:08 AM

The point of "donotlink" links is precisely that they DON'T add to the target site's rankings and don't generate any advertising revenue for it. They're perfectly clear about what their service achieves, read it.

A preview like what TinyURL provides would be useful, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 20 Jul 17 - 08:39 AM

I agree with daveRo.
If you think a site is worth linking to then it deserves to have any hits counted.
If you want to avoid adding to the number of hits for site-ranking then don't link to it.

Seemples!

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: DaveRo
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 05:11 PM

A disadvantage if that sort of link - and of link-shorteners in general - is that the reader cannot know where the link goes, by hovering over it or whatever facility the device provides. If I know that a link is to the Express, say, I might choose not to follow it at all. If you send readers to the Express who wouldn't normally go there you're increasing their page views, and potentally the fees they charge advertisers.

And why link to a site you detest? If you must do that I suggest you attach a warning, and perhaps a justification.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 19 Jul 17 - 03:25 PM

So many possible applications!

Could you please elucidate, Acme? Beyond catering to the digitally paranoid such as Jack, I see no worthwhile purpose.

Subject: RE: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 09:19 PM

So many possible applications! Thank you, Jack!

Subject: Tech: donotlink.it
From: Jack Campin
Date: 18 Jul 17 - 08:22 PM

This is a clever idea doing something useful:

https://donotlink.it/

You take a link from a site that you detest (the Express, say) and whose rankings you don't want to boost. It returns a short URL which takes the reader to that site when they click on it, but obscures the origin of the click (the REFERER attribute) and makes sure that the click doesn't boost the site's rankings on search engines.

Demo (not to a site many people here are likely to object to, though):

https://donotlink.it/wb5B