comment on

[Paraphrased] Is it an abuse of XML sites to bypass the ad-bannering that funds them?

Whether bypassing ad banners (e.g., by direct XML access) is "abuse" depends entirely on site policy. If a site exposes a public XML (or RSS, or whatever) interface, but not does qualify their use by a stated policy, then it's "anything goes".

If a site depends on ad banner money for revenue, and exposes direct XML access, and doesn't clearly state limitations on that access, then they're abusing themselves.

If you feel guilty about bypassing Monastery ad banners, there's always the Offering Plate.

In reply to (dws)Re: PM and XML (ab)use? by dws
in thread PM and XML (ab)use? by Masem

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks