Scratch
archived forums
#26 2011-09-02 07:13:28
- scimonster
- Community Moderator
- Registered: 2010-06-13
- Posts: 1000+
Re: Ban URL Shorteners
NeilWest wrote:
I agreee, URL shorteners are a waste of time, plus - I have Parental Controls on my PC (my mum loathes YouTube) so I'm only allowed to see certain sites. This means, when someone uses tinyurl, I can't acsess the link as it says Parental Controls blocked this webpage before it directs me to the Scratch Project intended. So yeah, they should'nt be banned - that would be harsh, but could users limit down their use of URL shorteners in case of people who have Parental Controls are hoping to see their project?
My parental controls don't block them; in fact, I use them! 
Moderator | Scratch Wiki Administrator | Coders' Shed AdministratorScratch 2.0 is just around the corner! Prepare for the transition by beta testing. Your feedback will help make it the best it can be!
Offline
#27 2011-09-02 10:05:42
Re: Ban URL Shorteners
scimonster wrote:
Barf_Bag wrote:
scimonster wrote:
How about a compromise? Banned in regular posts, but allowed in sigs.
People do the links in sigs a lot too
Just what I said: they are allowed to use them in sigs.
But it defeats the purpose for people will still link to banned sites in their sigs...
Offline
#28 2011-09-02 12:21:39
Re: Ban URL Shorteners
oh, get rid of it, if people would like to link to forbidden sited, there'll be enough ways except tinyurl etc. - just store a redirect in dropbox for example. that's not the thing who'll stop spammers. actually, you better forbid internet at all.
Offline