Someone I showed this image to took quite a liking to it, enough that he thought monochrome didn’t do it justice and had to colour it.
Also really hopes to see more DT and SS from you in the future Shax. As we all do, I’m sure.
Loading...
Loading...
…r father’s money.”
Maybe the same site but maybe on a different domain, maybe not an existent one by the time I come around to read it. Or maybe I’ll see it in some archive excavated from ancient ruins long after we nuked Earth with its Internet and will have no way of checking it was the same site. Or maybe I just don’t want to leave the hidden service. In general, possible drawbacks are minor, but plenty, and pretty annoying. Internal links are best left internal.
Of course you can do internal link with custom text too, but “original image” is exactly the opposite of what we call descriptive imo. It only tells about relation between the two posts, not about what the target of the link is. But when the link is there to literally just identify some resource, its (author, title)-tuple, URL, or other kind of recognizable identifier is the most descriptive text you can come up with anyway. Even it being linked is secondary then. Just like the source_url field which rightly is displayed verbatim rather than just there being the word “source” linked.
My preference would be something like “Color edit of >>1325812.”
I didn’t really expect anyone to reply to that half-hearted comment, though ;)
What’s the difference? You’re still loading a new page on the same site.
Only thing that changes is how easy it may or may not be for the person doing the linking. In this case, me… And I like links that are text saying what it is.
Edited
Ohh, I ain’t done with these two yet :D.