Jenk wrote:You could always try putting less of a bias on it..
My position is that the unique link needs to be identified, and your position is that it needs to use the same color as other links (blue). How was my statement that those are incompatible biased?
Jenk wrote:makes it even more random
Its not random at all - its extremely defined. You could argue that it is too much order - specifying an extra color when one isnt needed, but its not random.
Jenk wrote:and quite frankly a headache to read
For you. For me, as I mentioned, I find it lovely.
Jenk wrote:and doesn't achieve the goal of identifying the link
On the contrary, its a different color, so it does call out that the word 'means something else'. Its a unique type of link, unlike the other links on the site, so I agree with it needing another color.
Jenk wrote:Does this mean you joyfully read clicksor pages, safe in the knowledge that every link is very visible to you, when all you want to do is read the text?
I don't bother with the sites doing it. I've never found a site where I couldnt find the material I wanted elsewhere without that annoyance. Not to mention, you are comparing apples to oranges - clicksor links arent useful (these are), clicksor links are underlined, bolded, and colored differently (these are simply a new color), and most important of all, these actually help users.
Who was trying to inject bias? I suggested putting it up for a vote - you cant get much less bias than an open vote.