Now the forum software makes all posted urls as plain text, so if you want to follow a link you have to manually copy it and paste it in a browser window. I'm not one to criticise a free service but my fear is this will have a negative impact on discussions as I suspect most people will now not bother. If I was in a debate thread and a poster with an opposing viewpoint posted a link to back up their argument I would nearly always have a look at it, however, now I can't be bothered. Maybe it's just me, so keen to find out.

They say there's a technical reason the change was made and who am I to question that - it is what it is. And if people are still following links in discussions then all good, so let's find out!

Let the votes commence.

An example would be helpful

Just select the text of the link and do a web search. Google will take you there.

I am pretty sure some URLs still work the way they should. But it seems to me now they are much stricter about those URLs. I guess they have a whitelist what they allow. Just a guess. 

11 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

An example would be helpful

An example of what a URL looks like?

Ok, here's a random one.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/THA916/history/20241226/0635Z/VTBS/EGLL

Looks like you can still do it.

 

Here is your random one: Flightaware

 

EDIT:

LOL, that didn't work just like you said...

5 minutes ago, MTH said:

Looks like you can still do it.

 

Here is your random one: Flightaware

 

EDIT:

LOL, that didn't work just like you said...

Yep!
 

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1347586-do-you-bother-to-copy-and-paste-urls/

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Now the forum software makes all posted urls as plain text, so if you want to follow a link you have to manually copy it and paste it in a browser window. I'm not one to criticise a free service but my fear is this will have a negative impact on discussions as I suspect most people will now not bother. If I was in a debate thread and a poster with an opposing viewpoint posted a link to back up their argument I would nearly always have a look at it, however, now I can't be bothered. Maybe it's just me, so keen to find out.

They say there's a technical reason the change was made and who am I to question that - it is what it is. And if people are still following links in discussions then all good, so let's find out!

Let the votes commence.

 

I noticed the change myself, but I hadn’t realized there were actual backend adjustments to implement it.

 

As an admin on another forum dedicated to addressing and reporting online security issues to the public, we have a similar policy in place. On our forum, we disable all active URL links and email addresses in posts. Links can still be added, but they appear as plain text rather than clickable hyperlinks. This approach is essential for us because we need to prevent malicious and phishing links from being shared on our platform. For that reason, we’ve completely disabled hyperlink functionality.

 

As for this site, the reason for the change hasn’t been clearly explained. However, it might also be a security precaution. I’ve noticed several recent posts here containing malicious or potentially phishing links, which I report when I see them. It’s possible the admins decided to disable the functionality altogether now simply as a proactive security measure.

4 minutes ago, RSD1 said:

I’ve noticed several recent posts here containing malicious or potentially phishing links

but wouldn't copy and pasting a dodgy link be the same as selecting a link in a post?

Other sites have started to show a "really want to leave the site bla bla" warning that you have to confirm. Better than what is done here.

 

Net nanny for the incompetent.

Lock your children in the house as the world outside is so dangerous.

A complete perversion of the initial ideas of www.

Sir Tim won't be happy.

14 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

but wouldn't copy and pasting a dodgy link be the same as selecting a link in a post?

 

Yes, it would. However, adding an extra step for someone to make a link active might encourage them to think twice before doing so. A live hyperlink on a site is almost an open invitation for users to click on it. When the link is plain text based it may prompt people to pause instead and consider why it isn’t clickable.

 

On our site, we include plenty of warnings about the risks of clicking on potentially malicious links. As a security-focused platform, we must also be very cautious not to expose users to dangerous clickable links on our own site. While it’s not a perfect system, we do our best to mitigate the risks or reporting security threats to the public in an imperfect world.

 

That said, I’m not entirely sure what the reasoning is behind it on this site or whether there’s an actual security concern involved here or not.

 

The concern on this site might also be related to maintaining political correctness or avoiding the inadvertent sharing of active links to inappropriate content, such as pornographic sites. On our site, however, that isn’t a concern at all. Our focus is strictly on security and safety. Many phishing links can lead to the compromise of personal data and financial information, ultimately resulting in identity theft.

9 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

but wouldn't copy and pasting a dodgy link be the same as selecting a link in a post?

Yes, but the responsibility has been shifted.

Not so difficult really - highlight the URL right click on mouse choose open link

totally untrue and misleading.

 

CLOSED.

 

there is a pinned notice in the Support Forum.