Do they expect people to read these when they do not have the courtesy to tell us what they are about?
Why should we go to the effort of writing down a URL in order to look it up the next time we are on line, if they don't bother to tell us what we may expect to find there?
Bear in mind that a lot of us read newsgroups offline, to save on telephone bills, and it's no use saying "You can just click on it to see what it's about."
Ten clicks means ten phone calls, and my phone bill is already too high. And who has the time to look at all these web sites anyway?
Even if one has a broadband connection to the Internet, and the extra expense is negligible, there is another reason for not clicking on unsupported Web URLs: posting them is a technique used by spammers, and they often lead to sites that are simply advertising, or that contain malicious software. Clicking on URLs with an ambiguous or non-descriptive subject line, and nothing in the body of the text to indicate what is there, is not advisable, and could be dangerous to your computer.
If you want to refer to a web site in a newsgroup posting, then at least give a 3-4 line synopsis of the content, so those who are interested can make a note to look at it next time they go on line, or can have some idea of what they may expect to find there.
I don't object to people referring to web sites in e-mail messages or newsgroup postings. It can save a lot of typing. But there should be at least an abstract or summary of what is on the site.
If you want to know what you can find at this site, click here.
Created: 13 April 2004
Updated: 25 September 2013