«

In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
freemont <> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
>
> > Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the sake of
> > arguing. Silly.
>
> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w over
> the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and ****ing
> contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about right?

You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
paroxysmic stuff. 0%?

--
dorayme

In article <gqk31e$c1r$>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

> Isn't the argument that search engines pay a bit more attention to <a
> link text than regular content, and googling for "Click Here" is
> unproductive?

The first bit is a good point.

Only an idiot would google for "Click here". Oops... hang on... that's
me!

--
dorayme

In article <>,
Ben C <> wrote:

> On 2009-03-28, dorayme <> wrote:
....
> > One main argument against 'click here' is that no information is given
> > about where the user is going in the element text. Now, if you make it
> > perfectly clear otherwise where the user is going, the charge is often
> > one of inelegance. It is usually more economical to simply make the link
> > speak for itself.
>
> These are good arguments, but I read somewhere [citation needed] that
> people respond well to direct commands.
>
> Tell them jump and they ask how high. Tell them to click here and that's
> what they do.
>
> Links with boring words like, "read more information" got the fewest
> clicks in the study.

Perhaps people just like going on surprise destinations, the child in us
all, the mystery journey. Maybe there are studies of associated eyeball
reactions somewhere. Maybe the eyes of those who use Click me's a lot
will be found to grow their eyes in wonder and anticipation like kids
do... <g>

--
dorayme

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:

> In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
> freemont <> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
>>
>> > Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the sake
>> > of arguing. Silly.
>>
>> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
>> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
>> ****ing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
>> right?
>
> You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
> paroxysmic stuff. 0%?

Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
outta yer fly?"
Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

In article <de775$49ce0f92$ae831467$>,
freemont <> wrote:

> Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
> Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
> outta yer fly?"
> Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"

<g>

I like bar jokes.

This shadow walks into a bar.

"I'll have a Claytons." it says

"Figures!" says the barman.

--
dorayme

freemont wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:
>
>> In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
>> freemont <> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
>>>
>>>> Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the
>>>> sake of arguing. Silly.
>>>
>>> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
>>> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
>>> ****ing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
>>> right?
>>
>> You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
>> paroxysmic stuff. 0%?
>
> Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
> Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
> outta yer fly?"
> Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"

Bloke says to the bartender: Just between you and me we have five, and I'd
like a free beer just to prove it to the milling croud. Bartender says: Wow.
I've never met a bloke with four of them before.

rf wrote:
> freemont wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:
>>
>>> In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
>>> freemont <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
>>>>
>>>>> Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the
>>>>> sake of arguing. Silly.
>>>> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
>>>> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
>>>> ****ing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
>>>> right?
>>> You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
>>> paroxysmic stuff. 0%?
>> Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
>> Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
>> outta yer fly?"
>> Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"
>
> Bloke says to the bartender: Just between you and me we have five, and I'd
> like a free beer just to prove it to the milling croud. Bartender says: Wow.
> I've never met a bloke with four of them before.

Termite goes into a bar and asks "Where's the bar tender?"

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:57:51 +1030, Phil Kempster writ:

> rf wrote:
>> freemont wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:
>>>
>>>> In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
>>>> freemont <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the
>>>>>> sake of arguing. Silly.
>>>>> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
>>>>> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
>>>>> ****ing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
>>>>> right?
>>>> You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
>>>> paroxysmic stuff. 0%?
>>> Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
>>> Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
>>> outta yer fly?"
>>> Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"
>>
>> Bloke says to the bartender: Just between you and me we have five, and
>> I'd like a free beer just to prove it to the milling croud. Bartender
>> says: Wow. I've never met a bloke with four of them before.
>
> Termite goes into a bar and asks "Where's the bar tender?"

lol

Horse goes into a bar and the bartender says, "Why the long face?"

--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯

Ben C wrote:
> On 2009-03-28, dorayme wrote:
>> In article <>, Ed Mullen <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>> In article <49cd0004$>,
>>>> John Hosking wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know this is only an example, but "click here" is about the least
>>>>> useful text ever.
>>>> Mind you, it is nowhere near the back of the queue. ...
>> ...
>>> Honestly. What is not clear about "click here?" It may not be elegant,
>>> nor even grammatical in some contexts, but, still? "... Sheesh.

Oh, it's clear. We are supposed to click here (on the (probably) blue
underlined link). But what'll happen? Where will we land? What *is* the
link? Which last question takes us back to the Semantic Web discussions.

>> One main argument against 'click here' is that no information is given
>> about where the user is going in the element text. Now, if you make it
>> perfectly clear otherwise where the user is going, the charge is often
>> one of inelegance. It is usually more economical to simply make the link
>> speak for itself.
>
> These are good arguments, but I read somewhere [citation needed] that
> people respond well to direct commands.
>
> Tell them jump and they ask how high. Tell them to click here and that's
> what they do.
>
> Links with boring words like, "read more information" got the fewest
> clicks in the study.

Well, now I'm confused (as if wasn't ever before). Isn't "read more
information" a direct command?



--
John
Trivia question: Who was the 43rd president of the United States?

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:40:08 +0100, "hehehe" <> wrote:

>I have sen mail format : html and everythiks ok when i create mailto witouth
>body but when i add body new mail sudenly change to rtf ??? why??
>
Ask Outllook ......

Not everybody use outlook as mail client .......

A friend usues your method to create a mail with a subject, and a body
containing all input zones from the form.

I have SeaMonkey as my browserr and default mail client.
The only mail i get is an empty one ....

When i told this to my friend, he just say: ho ! it works for
everybody ...WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

If you really want to create a sophisticated mail from a from - please
use the mail() command inside a php page.