[-empyre-] Re: links
- To: empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au
- Subject: [-empyre-] Re: links
- From: "Nemo Nox" <lists@nemonox.com>
- Date: Mon Jul 1 14:40:05 2002
- Delivered-to: empyre@imap.cofa.unsw.edu.au
- In-reply-to: <v04003a09b939cbbadf0e@[203.96.156.231]>
- References: <p05100301b93890c15792@[129.177.138.228]> <p05111717b93491f09d5c@[131.170.98.157]> <200206181333080500.02A8CC9D@mail.nemonox.com> <p05111707b93568577594@[131.170.98.157]> <200206201935110970.0098EBAC@mail.nemonox.com> <p05100301b93890c15792@[129.177.138.228]> <v04003a09b939cbbadf0e@[203.96.156.231]>
- Reply-to: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
- Sender: empyre-admin@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
helen varley jamieson wrote:
>this discussion is about weblogs, not instituional sites.
>are weblogs there to meet the expectations of those who
>read/visit them? i don't think so. & i don't regard
>"control" over the content of a link as important - if
>at some point you discover it's broken or no longer
>appropriate, then you stop linking.
The discussion evolved (or sidetracked) to links in
general, and I was referring to that. Regarding weblog
links inside posts, yes, I agree with you, most people
assume they are temporary (and the post dates help to
give that feeling). I never bother checking my old
links and I doubt any other blogger does that, it
would be a full time job.
Nemo Nox
http://www.ploft.com/index.shtml
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.