So far, there has been quite the discussion taking place on a recent post here on Performancing (Pros And Cons Of The URL Field) with many excellent points being made. However, a comment written by Ami Ohayon made me stop for a moment to think. In her comment, she states that:
I don’t think the URL necessarily renders a comment inappropriate. Surely the judgment is about the quality of the comment, regardless of the link.
If the comment is spammy, spam it. If not, it’s adding to the conversation regardless of where it came from, no?
I tend to disagree. Regardless of how relevant the comment is in relation to the post, if I feel that the URL provided by the individual is a questionable site (possibly spam) I am going to spam it. Perhaps I have been brainwashed, but if I receive a comment that is relevant to my post and the URL links back to a website which is strictly for a product or a service, I automatically send it to Akismet as spam. The difference between obvious spam and this form of spam is that the message was written by a human to the point in which the comment would be published. Now, if the URL links back to a personal blog or if I can somehow identify the site as being owned by the person who left the comment (and the site does not look like a marketing ploy) I’ll publish the comment.
The way I see it, I have the ability to control what is and is not published on my blog. Do I choose relevancy over quality? I’m not only doing things this way for my benefit, but for those who frequent my blog and participate in my community. I don’t want them clicking on user URLs which are nothing more than marketing gimmicks.
At any rate, that is how I feel about this particular subject but it is now time for you to sound off in the comments.