I know of at least one other SE site where you can't put lmgtfy links in comments, because those are considered to be insulting and belittling.

But on this site, you can, and I was wondering why. Why is it different between the sites.
Obviously the message one sends out with a lmgtfy link is the same, no matter the site topic.

Could you post an example? Also note that we still have the "general reference" close reason, so being able to find a link that fully answers a question is on topic. –  simchona Dec 27 '12 at 21:12
Sure, here, first comment. They could just as well have made that a google link. –  Mr Lister Dec 27 '12 at 21:15
I'm not opposed to comments that point to evidence of general referenceness, mind you. –  Mr Lister Dec 27 '12 at 21:17
Very true. I think using the actual lmgtfy link wasn't called for, so I see your point here. If you find comments in the future that you think are rude, flag them. –  simchona Dec 27 '12 at 21:17
Whilst I know what that acronym stands for, I think it's wrong (particularly on an English language and usage site) to assume that everyone will know what it is. I do wish people would adopt the standard procedure of spelling it out before using the acronym - Let Me Google That For You (LMGTFY). –  spiceyokooko Dec 27 '12 at 23:05
have you consulted the site's policy document on proper decorum for forum interactions? –  jlovegren Dec 28 '12 at 0:43
@spiceyokooko I meant links that actually use the lmgtfy site. lmgtfy.com. See also the comment that I linked to. –  Mr Lister Dec 28 '12 at 8:42
LMGTFY links seem very appropriate for the kind of question posed in your example. They may be a bit terse, but they answer the question succinctly, and also provide the asker with a valuable tool that will save obvious questions from being asked and help them more artfully pose more complicated questions. It might be a little rude, but a LMGTFY need not be hostile, and it is a little rude for internet-enabled people to pose questions on an experts-exchange site that the most cursory of searches will answer. –  KDN Dec 29 '12 at 0:43
I disagree. LMGTFY are condescending and rude, and justifying that with "well, he was clueless, so that was worse" seems to me to reflect a similar spirit. –  Avner Shahar-Kashtan Jan 8 '13 at 6:17

1 Answer 1

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The short and sweet answer is, LMGTFY links are not filtered here because barely anyone ever posts them in the first place. (And should you run into one, flag it for mod attention and it will be dealt with.)

Further reading:

In addition, anyone unkind en Internet-savvy enough to post such links will probably mask them through bit.ly if blocked. So the blacklist would have to be able to resolve link-shortening services. –  Cerberus Dec 27 '12 at 21:55
Up vote and thank you. For @Cerberus Link-shortening services are generally frowned upon on StackExchange and other sites, excluding Twitter or Identi.ca. MSO has discussed banning them, many times. Persistence AND security are concerns with shortened links. There are browser add-on's that resolve and flag shortened malicious links. But using them is a personal choice with yet other concerns, admittedly! I try to flag or replace shortened links on SE if I spot them. Once burned by a browser exploit, twice shy. –  Feral Oink Jan 1 '13 at 8:53
@FeralOink: Yeah all true, but what if you have a very long Google Books link you want to post in a comment or something? I can see legitimate uses. The only time I have ever used then was to hide a LMGTFY, I must confess. But never with strangers. –  Cerberus Jan 1 '13 at 22:14
I don't understand why anyone would obfuscate a lmgtfy link. Surely the whole point is sarcasm or something similar. –  Dominic Cronin Jan 1 '13 at 23:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .