David Kaufman asked: >>a) no one cares who has not already voted [??] >>b) people were ignoring the thread, [??] >>c) no one is subscribed to the forum anymore [??] Hi Dave, (a) I care. (But with *my* technical reputation around here I certainly didn't want to be the first to vote or the first to lay out the language of the options we were actually voting on.) ;-P I actually _did_ intend to vote. I wanted to see how the options would be laid out. Since I'm not going to be the one doing the work, I will take someone else's word on what is 'easy' or 'hard' to implement ... I didn't want to push any option that was overly impractical. (b) Sad I know but I actually _have_ been following the thread. (c) Perhaps it's the dreaded 'entropy' - but some of us are still here. ('m vote, 'm colleagues) If I understand the tissue correctly, then my allergies make the following vote ... If it is "easy", then allow links to be presented in the body of the article and automagically 'nofollow' (or kill) any links that crop up in the comments.   Yeah links rot and decay over time. La (Web)ie! <shrug /> ... If it is "hard" to implement that kind of thing, then screw it --> 'nofollow' everything. Savvy? Wafflingly-ish, RonL.  Anyone reviewing articles will need to check all of the links within the article and use their judgement as to applicability to the article and 'overuse'.  Anyone caught redirecting an article link post-approval and publication (especially to a non-advisable location) should be flayed alive ... and then hurt really really badly. If we are concerned about this possibility, since it would be a major PITA to police, maybe we should just 'nofollow' everything.