Bill,
Netiquette aside, if trouble is on the horizon, then a re-directed profile is one link closer to the problem than an obvious (even if misnamed) link that is displayed in a profile. That one little link is the big difference, in my opinion. For when I referred to security, it was meant to include such low tech methods such as offering to the user a trojan horse executable to download. Such files, suspicious as they are to most people, might seem more acceptable if a user thought that the page offering it was located on an SI server. In any case, I see that Gary has already done a better job explaining the point.
And you are right, it can also be viewed as rude to re-direct a member from the true profile page, especially if the surfer's intent is only to view a member's posting history. That's why, earlier, I suggested separating the two.
As for your conclusion, "Therefore, SI should outlaw all profile links as well as re-directs, if they take any action at all".
Nah, SI could just issue a warning when leaving the site via a user created link. Other sites do it.
If fact, if we snoopers and linkers (and, yes, even some of us TV watchers) were allowed to get to member's posting history without having to go through a lot of profile....I think even a simple statement somewhere that SI is not responsible for profiles links would suffice...(By the way, I do understand that there is another way to go directly to history links....by copying you...http://www.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/search?s=user3738702&domain=Full )
Regards,
Michael |
