Skimlinks on Talk

I have noticed that clearing cookies from your browser helps to get rid of the links

I'm especially aggrieved at the patronising 'we're just doing this to make life easier for you' explanation from mnhq

Do you really think that the people who create the content on this board are that trusting and naïve??
We can see that we're just being rinsed, we're not stupid

Yy, Somerville.

Along the lines of All links not specified as posted by me are retrospectively added by MN's Ad Provider. I do not endorse any of the products or companies. Please be aware Malware may be hidden in these links

Bit unwieldy, but C&P I suppose

Somerville I fully agree.
That's why I was saying that changes like this do bring a change in the type of people using MN.
If MN is putting off the well educated, witty users, this will change the site for the worst, not for the better.

saucery TBH I wouldn't expect people to click on those links. I have done so a few times to check what they were but I am now REFUSING to on any link at all from MN.
im not not a cow ready for milking.

What will look especially low rent is when we all start adding disclaimers about any link not being a personal endorsement. I'm only not doing so at the moment because they're not enabled for 'sensitive' boards - do we have confirmation of exactly which these are?
But the first time I am thought to have endorsed something that is actually a skim link by another poster I will start writing a disclaimer. I hate this endorsement culture.

It also makes mn look a bit desperate and 'low rent' IMO

Yes, I thought that too DJKK.
It's interrupting the flow so much. And the Shed/TV programme thing is just ludicrous. Makes a poster look like they are posting on topic but with an agenda.

That's the way marketing is headed, DJKK. A bit like how some slebs are endorsing a product with every single instagram post. I was at a conference on it recently.

I suspect the user reaction will eventually be setting up not-for-profit talk forums and the like that are completely ad free. Especially at the point that more sites start blocking those running Adblock software.

If the whole post was skimlinks at least it would all be the same colour!

A thought occurred to me.... Shocking as that may be

If Skimlinks are added when the page loads and they're programmable to whatever whims the owners desire.

Does that mean that, hypothetically speaking, that Mumsnet could decide to make the word "Home" a skimlink and have it link to IKEA?
If that would be possible then what's to stop someone choosing lots of innocent words to link to lots of places?
Docs = Links to Dr Martens
Car = links to ford
I = link to apple

So on and so forth
It could be that every word ends up linking to somewhere :(

Not read whole thread yet, so apologies if this has been mentioned but skimlinks are not just targeting brands mentioned in a post. I was on a thread where I used the words 'emotional vacuum' or something and it created a skimlink which took me to vaxuum cleaners on ebay! It made me laugh but it does kind of ruin the seriousness of a post. I politely suggest that you need to do some refinement if you are going to keep these.
And yy, to changing link colours.

Oh and my other point is that skimlinks are so DUMB.

If Facebook can work out my political persuasion and show me links that I will agree with then surely Skimlinks can work out a) when I'm actually endorsing a product b) when it's actually a product I'm talking about and not just an everyday item and c) the actual product I'm talking about.

If I mention that I went to a supermarket, that's different to saying I recommend shopping at a particular supermarket.

If I say I often buy the DCs' and my clothes from a certain well known online clothes retailer to the middle classes (but recently the quality has been poor), that's different to saying "I bought the Trafalgar dress from B*den and it's really lovely fabric and fit".

In that latter circumstance, I don't think anyone would mind Skimlinks putting in a link automatically. But it should be to the exact item. And they jolly well should be able to sort their algorithms out to do that - or they are not worth their programmers.

In some ways, it looks like the posters is endorsing the link

This is part of my problem but it is also that it is SO intrusive when reading. This applies to brand names too I'm afraid. Every time you see a word in a different font or colour you are slowed up reading and it just makes it uncomfortable. It is as if the words were randomly larger or smaller and it makes you not want to read!

Ultimately MN relies on us writing, and us reading, content - if nobody writes or reads there will be no MN.

So if I link to the TV show site, using the actual word, which wins?

I would predict that my link will work, because punctuation next to the word seems to disable the skimlink.

Let's see...

Waltons

I just posted about The Waltons TV show and it linked to Waltons Sheds. It's confusing and stupid, and makes me look stupid for anyone who doesn't know about these links.

There's just such a huge difference between a supermarket or brand name and a generic term such as door handle.
I can understand the first links, although perfectly capable of googling Asda myself, from an ad pov and yes, MN needs revenue.
It's the altering of tone and content in members' posts that grates.

You have an opinion on Sainsbury's - fine.
You mention car doors and you get an eBay link - not fine.

You can't really adjust your posts accordingly, i.e. using terms like eyePhone and carrrrr doooors to avoid linking, given MN can add those terms to the list at any time, at which point existing posts will become skimlinked too.

The links are generated when the page is loaded, not when the post is written. So there is no way to control the effect on your content.

It's not the same than Advertising though because it creates a link that the posters have never chosen to put in.
In some ways, it looks like the posters is endorsing the link, which is an issue, esp when the poster is well known for example (and is known to be reliable).
That's different from an advert appearing on the side of the page for example.

It does come down to the feeling that Mumsnet users aren't just users, we are contributors. I don't so much have an issue with it going forward, contributors can choose to post or not or adjust their posts accordingly but skim linking old posts really isn't on.

How many other large sites give their users any say At all in what advertising they accept?

Well, not necessarily as they have said they will see how it goes which fits in with changing the plan if necessary. They havent said "tough shit, we're keeping them"

Although, as i said, they said "lets see..." with the emoji. I do think most people liked those though.

Do you think MN runs on unicorn poo and fairy dust?

Obviously not, but this is a fair way from 'listening to your target audience and change the plan if necessary' (Justine, Feb 2016)

More, we'll do what we like and you can put up with it or jog on. It was ever thus.

the wider issue is to do with the rights of companies to take ownership of and profit from peoples data
it may be legal now but in the long term we might question whether it is right and fair that our data/content can be freely appropriated by others and that we have no rights over it

if we dont question these things then we could wind up all 'owned' by g00gle, amaz0n and face b00k

yes companies want to make a profit but should they be allowed to do so in a predatory way

I can't find the rape thread that had the doctor who skimlink MNHQ, sorry. Will have another look tomorrow.

But I dont expect you give a shit. S'all about the ££.

Do you think MN runs on unicorn poo and fairy dust?