> (rewriting them to point inwards towards redirects for tracking purposes)

I like this idea a lot. It has more than one use. Tracking is one but eliminating the "PR bleed" is another and it should deter spammers who are looking for link weight.

I understand the sentiment you're conveying but a link isn't sacred. If you allow users to post content to your site then you should be taking measures to ensure that new users aren't spamming. I don't think the "go in and clean it up later" method cuts it.

> I understand the sentiment you're conveying but a link isn't sacred.

It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www.

> If you allow users to post content to your site then you should be taking measures to ensure that new users aren't spamming.

Of course, but breaking legitimate links as a form of spam control is just lazy.

We're going OT here, but...

> eliminating the "PR bleed"

There is no such thing. PR doesn't work this way, and the existence of outward links doesn't negatively impact the linking website in any way.

> It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www.

Anything on the www is only sacred if it's on your server. If you're on someone else's server it's up to them to extend the privilege of making links (or any content). Having links moderated for new users seems pretty fair--the vast majority of brand new users who make a post that contains links are spammers. The worst case is it will take a little time for a mod to clean up. You can even have your link be removed publicly but still function for members (so no Google juice but people can still answer your question).

If you have ever moderated a forum you will know how bad spammers can be. It's not just posts either, PM spam is really popular and a lot harder to police.

> It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www.

Surely it is the right of whoever is hosting the website to decide how they want to present content. I don't think you should have some god-given right to expect a url you posted on someone else's site to display however you want.

> It damn well should be. The link is the basis of the www.

I think it is just as much the basis of the www to show a link as it is to not show it.

I've considered rewriting user links to scramble the text and point them inward at a link proxy (which then routes out through an anonymizing service like anonym.to). Anything to destroy their value.

Haven't actually put it to practice yet though and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a good idea. Unfortunately it seems that if spammers catch just a whiff of SEO from you, they'll never stop, like cockroaches.

[edit] I also haven't tried putting it into practice because I can imagine how utterly annoying it would be. I can't stand those "you are now leaving [site x]" pages myself.

I'm not a fan of those either. If you want to avoid having a "now leaving" page while still deterring spammers then you could create your own URL shortener with a separate domain. The link text could be the original link but the URL is the one generated by your shortener. You could even restore the original text with a replace() if you ever felt the need.

Yeah, I like that.