Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GoldKey

Deep Linking

Recommended Posts

We are just starting to plan out our webpage for TAG (Tallahassee Area Geocachers) (North Florida). Anyway, I curious if deep linking into the Geocaching.com site is permissible. For example, we would like have links to specific caches in our area (maybe have a

featured cache of the month), to members user profiles, travel bugs that originated in this area, or other similar uses. We would also have a link to the main site. Has anyone ask/gotten permission to do this?

Share this post


Link to post

I have not heard from anyone here, nor have I gotten a response from contact@geocaching.com . For now I am going with the assumption that it is alright to do this based on the other threads I have read regarding other sites (some of the statistic sites) running their developed scripts against geocaching.com to gather data for their own sites. It seems that if this is viewed as OK, what I have in mind is far less invasive.

 

Goldkey

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to my little mini-rant of the day. This one's really simple: "There is *NO* *SUCH* *THING* as "deep linking." Why?

 

The way the web was designed, there is no functional or logical difference between "http://www.geocaching.com/" and "http://www.geocaching.com/[whatever]". They both have a protocol identifier ("http:"), a hostname ("//www.geocaching.com"), and a path to a resource ("/" and "[whatever]", respectively).

 

While media companies that do not understand the Internet may attempt to create a separate classification for links to their sites' root indices ("homepages") and links to other resources on their sites, this is merely an attempt to create an arbitrary rule for personal gain (at the cost of the Internet community as a whole). "Deep linking" is a false term based completely on a mistaken misinterpretation of reality, and it should die a quick and painful death.

 

Now, it is perfectly acceptable for a site admin to restrict links to thier site. A simple check of the referrer tag or checking a cookie dropped on viewing the homepage are two simple ways of restricting which pages may be linked to. In fact, there are several sites that block any link from Slashdot in order to prevent overloads.

 

If Jeremy wants to block access to all the pages but the homepage, he has the technical capabilities to do so. Barring that, there is nothing to say that you cannot link to whatever resources you would like to link to (excepting, of course, the perverse imaginations of deluded old-media companies with too many lawyers and too few geeks).

 

(There. Much better now. icon_wink.gif)

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to my little mini-rant of the day. This one's really simple: "There is *NO* *SUCH* *THING* as "deep linking." Why?

 

The way the web was designed, there is no functional or logical difference between "http://www.geocaching.com/" and "http://www.geocaching.com/[whatever]". They both have a protocol identifier ("http:"), a hostname ("//www.geocaching.com"), and a path to a resource ("/" and "[whatever]", respectively).

 

While media companies that do not understand the Internet may attempt to create a separate classification for links to their sites' root indices ("homepages") and links to other resources on their sites, this is merely an attempt to create an arbitrary rule for personal gain (at the cost of the Internet community as a whole). "Deep linking" is a false term based completely on a mistaken misinterpretation of reality, and it should die a quick and painful death.

 

Now, it is perfectly acceptable for a site admin to restrict links to thier site. A simple check of the referrer tag or checking a cookie dropped on viewing the homepage are two simple ways of restricting which pages may be linked to. In fact, there are several sites that block any link from Slashdot in order to prevent overloads.

 

If Jeremy wants to block access to all the pages but the homepage, he has the technical capabilities to do so. Barring that, there is nothing to say that you cannot link to whatever resources you would like to link to (excepting, of course, the perverse imaginations of deluded old-media companies with too many lawyers and too few geeks).

 

(There. Much better now. icon_wink.gif)

Share this post


Link to post

Every good rant deserves a reply. Let me start by saying that for the most part, I completely agree with you. However...

 

While I will agree that “deep linking” seems to be an arbitrary rule, that does not mean it does not exist. Deep linking is simply linking directly to content without going through the main page. You said that it is “acceptable for a site admin to restrict links to their site.” Therefore, it must exists and since as you said some sites do it, they must have a problem with deep linking.

 

Again, I don’t personally think deep linking should be restricted, but still this is Jeremy’s site, and I respect the work that has been put into it. Just because they have not put the security in place that you mentioned to keep people from deep linking does not necessarily mean they want people doing it. (That would be like making the argument that just because there is not a fence or a no trespassing sign, then it must be OK to place a cache in a particular spot.)

 

That said, there is a certain line that can be crossed with deep linking. For example, I run two Star Trek Websites. We have lots of pictures as well as other content. We have found other sites that have linked directly to our pictures to have them inserted into their own html pages rather than copying them and hosting them on their own servers. I would call this deep linking and it really pisses me off. We end up paying for the bandwith to host the pictures for someone elses site. When I find this, I replace the picture with a picture with the text that says, “I stole this pic, visit site name for the best trek site around.” People that can’t even copy a pic to their own site don’t usually perform much maintenance either, so I get a free add on their site until they figure it out.

 

Incidentally, I have since received permission to “deep link” into Geocaching.com site, along with guidelines for giving proper credit. Whether I could have just done it or not without asking, does not really matter, I feel better for asking.

 

So I guess you don't mind if I link directly to the ClayJar Rating System page? icon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gif

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post

Every good rant deserves a reply. Let me start by saying that for the most part, I completely agree with you. However...

 

While I will agree that “deep linking” seems to be an arbitrary rule, that does not mean it does not exist. Deep linking is simply linking directly to content without going through the main page. You said that it is “acceptable for a site admin to restrict links to their site.” Therefore, it must exists and since as you said some sites do it, they must have a problem with deep linking.

 

Again, I don’t personally think deep linking should be restricted, but still this is Jeremy’s site, and I respect the work that has been put into it. Just because they have not put the security in place that you mentioned to keep people from deep linking does not necessarily mean they want people doing it. (That would be like making the argument that just because there is not a fence or a no trespassing sign, then it must be OK to place a cache in a particular spot.)

 

That said, there is a certain line that can be crossed with deep linking. For example, I run two Star Trek Websites. We have lots of pictures as well as other content. We have found other sites that have linked directly to our pictures to have them inserted into their own html pages rather than copying them and hosting them on their own servers. I would call this deep linking and it really pisses me off. We end up paying for the bandwith to host the pictures for someone elses site. When I find this, I replace the picture with a picture with the text that says, “I stole this pic, visit site name for the best trek site around.” People that can’t even copy a pic to their own site don’t usually perform much maintenance either, so I get a free add on their site until they figure it out.

 

Incidentally, I have since received permission to “deep link” into Geocaching.com site, along with guidelines for giving proper credit. Whether I could have just done it or not without asking, does not really matter, I feel better for asking.

 

So I guess you don't mind if I link directly to the ClayJar Rating System page? icon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gif

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post

On one of my cache pages, I copied a picture of the cache location from another non caching web site. I was going to put in the hyperlink to their site but there was info there that were spoilers. Is that allowed? The other web site appears to be non-commercial. Does that make a difference.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post

If it was a non-commercial site and they did not have any copyright information on the page, you are probably OK, but it does not hurt to ask. They might be flattered that you want to use their picture. In my particular question, I was asking out of courtesy.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

On one of my cache pages, I copied a picture of the cache location from another non caching web site. I was going to put in the hyperlink to their site but there was info there that were spoilers. Is that allowed? The other web site appears to be non-commercial. Does that make a difference.

 

Alan


Share this post


Link to post

I agree with what I think clayjar said. Which is that "deep linking" should not be restricted by lawyers but by code which checks the referrer tag to see where the request came from. If a site does that they don't have to check logs or search engines to find out who is linking to restricted pages. This even works for images, a image in a web page can be provided by a program, which checks to see what image should be provided.

 

[This message was edited by AllenLacy on July 14, 2002 at 06:44 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

... with too many lawyers and too few geeks).

 

(There. Much better now. icon_wink.gif)


 

Hey I resent that - some lawyers are geeks too! icon_frown.gif

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

... with too many lawyers and too few geeks).

 

(There. Much better now. icon_wink.gif)


 

Hey I resent that - some lawyers are geeks too! icon_frown.gif

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by GoldKey:

If it was a non-commercial site and they did not have any copyright information on the page, you are probably OK, but it does not hurt to ask. They might be flattered that you want to use their picture. In my particular question, I was asking out of courtesy.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:

On one of my cache pages, I copied a picture of the cache location from another non caching web site. I was going to put in the hyperlink to their site but there was info there that were spoilers. Is that allowed? The other web site appears to be non-commercial. Does that make a difference.

 

Alan



 

Well I asked and they said sure go ahead. Tks.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

... with too many lawyers and too few geeks).


L = Number of lawyersLid = Ideal number of lawyersG = Number of geeksGid = Ideal number of geeks((L > Lid) && (G < Gid)) == TRUE
This says nothing about whether any element of the set of lawyers is or isn't an element of the set of geeks.

 

[b]L[/b] = Set of all lawyers[b]G[/b] = Set of all geeksThe intersection of sets   [b]L[/b] and [b]G[/b]is not necessarily the empty set.
(I wish I could specify a symbol font so I could actually write the upside-down U for "intersection" and the phi for "empty set", but oh well. icon_wink.gif)

 

[This message was edited by ClayJar on July 19, 2002 at 10:09 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

... with too many lawyers and too few geeks).


L = Number of lawyersLid = Ideal number of lawyersG = Number of geeksGid = Ideal number of geeks((L > Lid) && (G < Gid)) == TRUE
This says nothing about whether any element of the set of lawyers is or isn't an element of the set of geeks.

 

[b]L[/b] = Set of all lawyers[b]G[/b] = Set of all geeksThe intersection of sets   [b]L[/b] and [b]G[/b]is not necessarily the empty set.
(I wish I could specify a symbol font so I could actually write the upside-down U for "intersection" and the phi for "empty set", but oh well. icon_wink.gif)

 

[This message was edited by ClayJar on July 19, 2002 at 10:09 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

Deep linking is an artifical term coined by the media to once again screw up the simplicity and effeciency of the net and its protocols.

 

LINKING IS LIKNING

 

Period...end of story.

 

Each thing on the net has an address (the url) and if it has one then it can be linked to.

 

If your a dinkum users of web servers you can mess with things to allow only certian vectors to certian pages (ie such and such a page can only be called from such and such a source (like a page on your own servers))

 

If you dont want your information linked to shut down your tcp stack, turn off your computer, unplug all your aplliences and wear double strength shinny side out aluminum helmets.

 

----------------------------

TeamWSMF@wsmf.org

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

quote:
Originally posted by ClayJar:

... with too many lawyers and too few geeks).


((L > Lid) || (G < Gid)) == TRUE

Well, which is it, and or or?

 

warm.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

Well, which is it, and or or?


It's and, just like I typed. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

Well, which is it, and or or?


It's and, just like I typed. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...