Feature Request: Option to have links open in new window - 18 views
started by The Ravine / Joseph Dunphy on 14 Mar 09
1 follow-up, last by The Ravine / Joseph Dunphy on 02 Jan 12
I notice that Uservoice will not let me reply to your post, Perrin, so I'll repost those remarks here: http://feedback.diigo.com/forums/76211-ideas/suggestions/1067705-do-not-force-target-blank-it-disrespects-
And in your usual narcissistic way, Mr. Perrin, you ask those reading this to just assume that those who do care about the issue will feel the same way about it as you do, even though you, yourself already know this to be absolute nonsense. We've briefly discussed this subject in this discussion http://groups.diigo.com/group/Diigo_HQ/content/forcing-new-windows-disrespecting-user-preferences-the-target-blank-effect-959907 in which I've already given you a remedy to the non-issue you've been raising, and in this discussion http://groups.diigo.com/group/Diigo_HQ/content/feature-request-option-to-have-links-open-in-new-window-587245 in which I explained why giving in to you on this issue would create a real problem for a number of us, and in the long run, for the company as well. One might notice that my first post in that discussion has been censored, and as I've seen you call for censorship, before http://groups.diigo.com/group/Diigo_HQ/content/bookmarks-insist-on-being-private-against-my-will-959613#36 I think I can make a reasonable guess as to who wrongly flagged that remark. Pushy little fellow, aren't you? But let's take a look at why this idea that you've fixated on is such a terrible one ... |
Having offsite links open in a new window in a page of website reviews - something that really is a good practice - means that the visitor can easily find his way back to the page and read more reviews, when he's done reading each review in turn. All that the reader needs to do is keep the old window open, and when he goes back to it, there he will be, right where he was before, ready to look at the next item in turn, if he so pleases. This represents effortless convenience for the average reader, whose attachment to the Internet is likely to be shaky, and who does have better things to do with his time than to learn how to become a "power user", and learn the quirks of this system or that. Now, let's take a look at the consequences of granting the whims of users like Mr. Perrin, whose argument, as you can see just by looking at his post, is that you should give him what he wants, just because he's been willing to make a scene about this, and go on making a scene about this over a period of years. The average reader will come to that link, and not only not knowing the difference between right and left clicking on a link, but not really wanting to know, will go through that link into the same window he was on, when looking at the menu of links, and what is likely to happen, next? Most pages we will link to will, themselves, have other links, which the reader will then follow, meaning that if he's doing so in the same window as the bookmark page was on, in order to get back he'll either have to backarrow his way back, watching each page he was at open sluggishly, as they tend to at such times, just to get back to where he was. Sites will often link to other sites, and curiosity can and will carry our readers quite far. Backarrowing through all of that, over and over, is going to get to be a real nuisance when it's possible at all, and in many cases, it won't be. After a certain number of backarrowings, the system usually forgets exactly where the previous site had been. End result: In exchange for appeasing our boy with the Napoleon complex, Diigo will be bleeding traffic. Visitors, on a continuing basic, will be failing to return to our pages and Diigo's site. Was Diigo hoping to monetarize itself, someday, probably by carrying advertising? If Diigo becomes a place where visitors linger for only seconds before not being seen again, because getting back to where one was is either too much work or not possible at all, then those ads aren't going to be worth anything to the advertisers, and potential advertisers are going to learn this, very quickly. At that point, say goodbye, not just to your ad revenue in the present, but to the possibility of ever earning such revenue, because your company will have squandered whatever trust those potential advertisers would have been willing to give, by offering them the chance to pay for a worthless opportunity. Nobody enjoys being hustled. As for the users ... a number of us have memberships on Webring, and I can assure you that despite the impression that the loudmouthed Mr. Perrin would leave, some of us very much do care about this, and would most strongly object to his wishes on this point being granted. Webring is rightly opposed to the creation of one way sites - sites that the visitor, having visited, will have trouble returning from - and having the links open in this way effectively turns our homepages into such sites, if we should integrate them with our pages on Diigo, at all. Some of us might even want to put our Diigo pages, themselves, on the Webring system - something that has been around and has been a notable presence on the Internet long before this odious and otherwise inconsequential little man who has nominated himself to be the king of Diigo first decided to blight our days with his presence. Granting him his wish eliminates that as a possibility. Perhaps, as a user, one might want to carry on a sort of extended discussion, making a microblog of one's favorite page, linking into this site here and that site there, as one makes one's points. One would be asked to accept that one was to lack the freedom to do so, because Mr. Perrin personally felt strongly about this, and decided that he had the right to decide for others how their pages would work. I assure you that despite any incredible lies Perrin will have told you to the contrary, that creative freedom is something that those whose work is worth reading will care about most intensely, and that they are not going to find this acceptable. And what does Perrin have by way of rebuttal, in this case? A willingness to play the broken record game, as he pretends that an opposition does not exist, and seeks to foster that illusion by asking that any arguments that he doesn't care for be deleted. That, and a willingness to throw a temper tantrum over the fact that the design of somebody else's page ignored HIS "strongly held preferences". The problem with Diigo is that this flimsy rationale will probably be reason enough, as appeasing crazy people like Perrin seems to be the main corporate strategy for this company. But it's no recipe for success. |
|
What do you know? Another censored post. What's interesting about this one is that there is absolutely no need to take my word for what it said, because this one made it into the Internet Archive before it was deleted. This gives us some idea of when the deed was done, because the Internet archive records dates. A January 23, 2010 copy of the discussion can be found at the list of archived copies of this discussion in the Internet archive still shows my September 21, 2009 post, meaning that somebody waited over three months to delete my post. As I said, waiting until most of us had stopped watching before tampering with the archives. Let's take a look at this post of mine which was so offensive, that it had to be taken out of the record, on the sly. Nothing has been changed except for the font and background color.
A mere statement of incredulity, reasonably supported by ample experience, was enough to get somebody on the staff to engage in censorship, in a very sneaky way. People at Diigo: where's your integrity? Where did you get the idea that this was acceptable behavior? Yes, I'm still saving copies of this garbage, and will be inviting people to ask themselves just how much trust Diigo deserves, given that your staff has shown itself to be willing to resort to this sort of game playing. |
> .. > .. don't show up in the toolbar > > .. Let's continue the list/toolbar discussion under your other ... |
|
|
Censorship is not cool. Censorship carried out for venal puposes is even less so. But I'd seen people sink to it before, so I had the foresight to hold onto copies of the posts which were wrongly deleted from this discussion, allowing me to repost them here. Post # 9 read:
Let's make sure that there is no misunderstanding on this point. I'm the one who wrote "(deleted)". There was no profanity in that passage to delete, because I never put any in, in the first place. The only thing that I've changed in the passage is the font color, because I've set the quote against a black background. In this case, we have a perfect valid complaint - that Perrin is acting as if he possesses authority which he does not - being responded to with an act of censorship. This is completely unacceptable and grossly unprofessional. I'd go so far as to call it corrupt. |
Let's take a look at comment 11, now. As you will see, it's deletion was equally indefensible, and arguably defamatory in its effect (and, I'd say its intent as well), as it leaves the reader with a distorted picture of what was taking place in this discussion. Ever see Jimmy Kimmel do his "year of unnecessary censorship" pieces? Then you know the game, the difference being that Kimmel lets you in on the game. Let's see what a little added context will do, in this case.
|
I'm holding onto copies of this update for reasons which should now be obvious. There is nothing honest about the moderation taking place in this forum. This is really bad. Outrageous, in fact. Perrin, having been called on the fact that he's been creating the illusion that he's something he's not, declares a truthful statement to be a personal attack, on the basis that the truth doesn't make him look very good. This is an argument that should get its maker laughed out of any discussion in which it is made, and yet somebody on staff was willing to engage in censorship, in support of it. Absolutely disgraceful. Open question to those working at Diigo - who did this, and how long ago did you fire him? Tampering with the public record in order to protect a misbehaving user from the public recognition of his misconduct, at the expense of another user with a valid complaint? How much worse could this be? |
Bring your cursor up to your name, which you should see in the upper right hand corner of your screen, just to the left of the box with the word "groups" in it. A little box will come onto your screen, containing the following words, in a column profile settings tools sign out Click on "settings". You'll be able to use the box at the top of the screen to reset your password. |
Originally Posted to the Diigo Feature Request Community, crossposted here because I'm not sure that Diigo is reading that group, any more. But I hope they are. |
Oh, wait. I remember, now. Because Graham Perrin has repeatedly complained about the practice of having links open in new windows, as he does in this discussion. So really, it goes that far? We aren't even free to make feature requests that the in kids don't like, without some cowardly mod sneaking in and deleting our content, the moment we aren't looking. Diigo is so afraid of controversy, that even feature requests get censored.
Awesome. This company is special. Take a look at the rest of my posts from today, and you'll see what I mean. Incredible.
I should point out the tone of my remarks has changed considerably. The original was a friendly explanation of my position. As I repeat some of my already censored arguments in my recent post, I'm angry and I let that anger show, because I should be angry. This wasn't just inexcusable. It was unforgivable. Somebody needs to be fired over this.