Talk:Inline linking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bandwidth theft has been redirected here as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth theft, there were several votes to merge the contents over to this article if anyone wants the task. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Clearly "direct linking" is more appropriate term; "inline" just doesn't ring a bell with most people. I've been doing web programming for years and it took me longer than normal to decode what this article was about -- it was simply about direct linking, and "inline linking" was just a confusing synonym. Ninjagecko 12:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Ninjagecko

[edit] Merge both with "hotlinking"?

I'd like to see this and direct linking merged and formed into a new category: "Hotlinking". It's the most commonly used term AFAIK. ----David n m bond 15:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I also would like to see them merged with "Hotlinking". This is the term I have heard most often; I'd never heard any of the others before. Seaheart317 02:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that "Hotlinking" is the more commonly used now to describe Inline Linking, I believe that "Hotlinking," especially the word "hot link" is an outdated term for what we now call a "link." S4xton 15:37 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What about "remote linking"? It's the most commonly used term today, especially among free web hosting providers themselves. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a merge of the articles under hotlinking with a distinction being made between the authorized and unauthorized use as both articles are muddy on the point. I would have to say that "hotlinking" is the most common usage in the vernacular today for an object request (generally an image) from one server by another. It is far different than and ordinary link as it performs a get on the object at page load as opposed to being clicked (thus the link is “hot”). The terms leeching, bandwidth theft, or bandwidth rape are associated with this as an unauthorized negative activity. Remote linking and direct linking are generally associated with this as an authorized activity. --Roblem 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that they should be merged. An "inline link" that would be considered bandwidth theft is frowned upon by every personal website owner that I know. However, "direct links", which go to HTML files (it is important that it does not link directly to other media), promote the user to browse the site, bringing traffic. This is almost always appreciated, even when it is not a link to the "index" or "intro" page.

Is there any evidence that those terms are used as described? IMHO there ought to be one article, which says that "inline/hot/direct/deep linking is linking from one page to a specific document or media item on another site. Generally links to HTML pages are encouraged, but links to media may be considered theft". Simple, eh? Stevage 07:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the previous posters definitions, but fail to see why these should be one article when they are such clearly separate concepts.

[edit] Alternative terms

Has anyone ever heard of terms like "Raping the bandwidth", or "Bandwidth rape" used in similar context?--DooMDrat 07:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Even the repeated use of "bandwidth theft" in the article comes of as extremely alarmist to me. Hyperlinks are just hyperlinks; there's no "proper" way to organize what constitutes a "site" or a "web page". (Hence, why *everything* has a unique URL.) All of this webmaster complaining that people "hot linking" or "deep linking" doesn't conform to their "vision" (regardless of anyone else's "vision") of their web page is completely childish and malinformed. Good thing there's always Greasemonkey. 71.162.255.58 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No vote

I would consider "deep linking" and "bandwidth theft" to be different things that should be handled separately. One is simply directing traffic to a site via a normal link. The other is using another site as a free image storage site without actually sending it any traffic. MichaelSH 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with direct linking

This merger has been proposed and having read both articles I agree that this might be a good idea. Perhaps leaving direct linking as a redirect to this page. __meco 07:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging Direct linking seems sensible to me. Thayvian 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)