From the Moderators: Input requested

Recently I was wondering about this. I am glad you all clarified your view on it today. ISTM that Ed Zollars and you, as moderators, are pretty good about letting people post objections to web sites, commercial or otherwise, in whatever context. This usually permits the "free market of ideas" to work as designed.

Perhaps, in your weekly posting on moderation policy, you can require posters who provide links to other sites to state in their posts that they have reviewed the site and "consider it relevant to financial planning. Some biases inevitably may be present; caveat emptor." Posters who are subsequently found to have made a false statement in their posts on this matter get penalized for a period of [you all decide--just be specific].

Otherwise, I would hate to preclude the posting of links to sites like, say, smartmoney.com 's site on the historical bond yield curve. Sure it is a commercial site and has advertisements, but the thrust of the site is to present factual information.

I believe the issue to address is spam, rather than hyperlinks per se. In today's Internet, a responsible computer user (up-to-date on security patches, cautious about passwords and personal info, using some kind of firewall software) has little to fear in terms of security from simply clicking on a link. What they do after that first click is their responsibility.

An original post that merely promotes a web site would clearly be spam. However someone might ask a question such as "I read this financial advice at , but I don't understand, could someone explain?" That could either be a sincere question, or disguised spam. The first few responders to the question should be able to suss that out pretty quickly.

Responses to original posts should be able to provide links as references, whether commercial or not, much preferable to cutting and pasting large amounts of quoted text. Like any reply, the value of the information provided will have to be determined by each reader. Certainly anyone's financial planning, and especially financial action, is going to involve commercial firms at some point. After all, what's the difference between mentioning, say, "Vanguard funds" and providing a link to same?

Lastly, two observations: I don't think this group is so highly trafficked that it is going to attract legions of spammers on a daily basis. And by comparison, at some places, such as Motley Fool, you actually have to pay for the privilege of receiving some of the spam! So providing it here for free could be seen as a bargain!

-Mark Bole

I have, on occasion, initiated a thread with a link to a web site that I think might be interesting to the group. I think that is in the spirit of the group, but I'll stop if lots of people object.

Otherwise, not only can a link eliminate a lot of quoting (and possible copyright violations), it can provide more authority to a viewpoint than just mine, and it give the reader access to more links on the subject.

I think we would be losing something important if links were broadly banned.

-- Doug

snip

I think there's value in answers which contain good links/referrals. In many cases it add validity to a poster's reply, and in other cases let's the poster give the brief reply encouraged here, and the link as 'bibliography' in case the OP is interested. Completely prohibiting the links may have the unintended consequence of longer posts as well as threads that continue due to the lack of an accepted, final, source. JOE

Sometimes, the question really calls for a web link. For example, a question about the cost of a fixed annuity might be best answered by a reference to

so that the OP can run personalized scenarios. (See, I just pointed to a commercial web site!)

I like the idea of permitting them, at least if the person posting the link has established credibility in this newsgroup.

Dave

I concur with the others that posting a site is valuable since it enables participants in a discussion to evaluate context. But that doesn't mean the links should go unreviewed (except for the obvious amount of work this places on the moderators). I have been guilty (not knowing of the prohibition in the charter, but ignorance is no excuse) of posting both commercial and non-commercial links to this newsgroup, and you have not rejected these posts, so perhaps the restrictions to these sites are not as strict as your post seems to indicate? Indeed, commercials masquerading as legitimate posts should be rejected. It would seem that Elle's suggestion is a good one, i.e. applying sanctions to posters who slip in a commercial, perhaps by knocking them off the quick-approval list (if it still exists)? That would limit review for attempted commecials to new or infrequent posters, maybe?

-Will

Skip, I thought it was just "solicitations" that were prohibited by the charter, not all links to commercial sites. Meaning don't post a link and point to your own site (or your employer's), except perhaps in the sig line in a post that adds something to the discussion. Is that incorrect?

-Tad

My opinions:

I find the links others post quite helpful and even have a few of them bookmarked. I think links should be allowed within this newsgroup

IF restrictions need to be added to FAQ or charter, I might suggest:

1) only allowing links included at END of posts (so it's easy for moderators to see) 2) restricting how many links are included within a single post 3) requiring all links to be relevant to financial planning 4) requiring links to be relevant to current discussion 5) if quoting an article, link the article and still quote the article for those readers which do NOT want to review entire link

6) don't post links to a site you or your employer operate, except in the sig line in the context of a constructive post

though I think something like that might be in the charter?

-Tad