jIM wrote:
- quote -

I'd suggest adding
6) don't post links to a site you or your employer operate, except in
the sig line in the context of a constructive post

though I think something like that might be in the charter?

-Tad

- quote -


I find the links others post quite helpful and even have a few of them
bookmarked.
I think links should be allowed within this newsgroup

IF restrictions need to be added to FAQ or charter, I might suggest:

1) only allowing links included at END of posts (so it's easy for
moderators to see)
2) restricting how many links are included within a single post
3) requiring all links to be relevant to financial planning
4) requiring links to be relevant to current discussion
5) if quoting an article, link the article and still quote the article
for those readers which do NOT want to review entire link

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
- quote -

Skip, I thought it was just "solicitations" that were prohibited by the
charter, not all links to commercial sites. Meaning don't post a link
and point to your own site (or your employer's), except perhaps in the
sig line in a post that adds something to the discussion. Is that incorrect?

-Tad

HW \"Skip\" Weldon wrote:

- quote -

I concur with the others that posting a site is valuable since it
enables participants in a discussion to evaluate context. But that
doesn't mean the links should go unreviewed (except for the obvious
amount of work this places on the moderators). I have been guilty (not
knowing of the prohibition in the charter, but ignorance is no excuse)
of posting both commercial and non-commercial links to this newsgroup,
and you have not rejected these posts, so perhaps the restrictions to
these sites are not as strict as your post seems to indicate? Indeed,
commercials masquerading as legitimate posts should be rejected. It
would seem that Elle's suggestion is a good one, i.e. applying sanctions
to posters who slip in a commercial, perhaps by knocking them off the
quick-approval list (if it still exists)? That would limit review for
attempted commecials to new or infrequent posters, maybe?

-Will

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
- quote -

Sometimes, the question really calls for a web link. For example, a
question about the cost of a fixed annuity might be best answered by a
reference to www.immediateannuities.com so that the OP can run
personalized scenarios. (See, I just pointed to a commercial web site!)


I like the idea of permitting them, at least if the person posting the
link has established credibility in this newsgroup.

Dave

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
- quote -

I think there's value in answers which contain good links/referrals. In
many cases it add validity to a poster's reply, and in other cases let's
the poster give the brief reply encouraged here, and the link as
'bibliography' in case the OP is interested. Completely prohibiting the
links may have the unintended consequence of longer posts as well as
threads that continue due to the lack of an accepted, final, source.
JOE

Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:

- quote -

I have, on occasion, initiated a thread with a link to a web site that I think
might be interesting to the group. I think that is in the spirit of the group,
but I'll stop if lots of people object.

Otherwise, not only can a link eliminate a lot of quoting (and possible
copyright violations), it can provide more authority to a viewpoint than just
mine, and it give the reader access to more links on the subject.

I think we would be losing something important if links were broadly banned.

-- Doug

HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:

- quote -

I believe the issue to address is spam, rather than hyperlinks per se.
In today's Internet, a responsible computer user (up-to-date on security
patches, cautious about passwords and personal info, using some kind of
firewall software) has little to fear in terms of security from simply
clicking on a link. What they do after that first click is their
responsibility.

An original post that merely promotes a web site would clearly be spam.
However someone might ask a question such as "I read this financial
advice at <link> , but I don't understand, could someone explain?" That
could either be a sincere question, or disguised spam. The first few
responders to the question should be able to suss that out pretty quickly.

Responses to original posts should be able to provide links as
references, whether commercial or not, much preferable to cutting and
pasting large amounts of quoted text. Like any reply, the value of the
information provided will have to be determined by each reader.
Certainly anyone's financial planning, and especially financial action,
is going to involve commercial firms at some point. After all, what's
the difference between mentioning, say, "Vanguard funds" and providing a
link to same?

Lastly, two observations: I don't think this group is so highly
trafficked that it is going to attract legions of spammers on a daily
basis. And by comparison, at some places, such as Motley Fool, you
actually have to pay for the privilege of receiving some of the spam!
So providing it here for free could be seen as a bargain! <grin
-Mark Bole

Recently I was wondering about this. I am glad you all
clarified your view on it today. ISTM that Ed Zollars and
you, as moderators, are pretty good about letting people
post objections to web sites, commercial or otherwise, in
whatever context. This usually permits the "free market of
ideas" to work as designed.

Perhaps, in your weekly posting on moderation policy, you
can require posters who provide links to other sites to
state in their posts that they have reviewed the site and
"consider it relevant to financial planning. Some biases
inevitably may be present; caveat emptor." Posters who are
subsequently found to have made a false statement in their
posts on this matter get penalized for a period of [you all
decide--just be specific].

Otherwise, I would hate to preclude the posting of links to
sites like, say, smartmoney.com 's site on the historical
bond yield curve. Sure it is a commercial site and has
advertisements, but the thrust of the site is to present
factual information.

Referring readers to a commercial web site is prohibited by our
charter. Additionally we usually decline to post non-commercial web
sites and blogs. (A web site link in the signature file is OK
providing the post makes a substantive contribution.)

Our reasons for passing on non-commercial sites and blogs are 1) in
the screening process we are wary of clicking on links for security
reasons, 2) we don't have the time to review an entire web site, 3)
absent a review we do not know if a site is commercial or not, 4) what
is commercial to one person may be informational to another, and 5)
the purpose of the newsgroup is to discuss personal financial planning
- not merely refer readers to other places.

As an aside, several years ago a poster included a link which, if
clicked, produced a picture of an attractive couple who definitely
were not engaged in financial planning. <grin
Nevertheless, we are all adults and if the group wishes us to approve
non-commercial links (web sites and blogs) without review, please let
us know by responding to this post - both pro and con.

Thank you.


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC