views:

139

answers:

2

I have noticed that some websites prefix the titles of their links with blocked::.

For example:

<a href="http://www.a-url.com" title="blocked::http://www.a-url.com"&gt;www.a-url.com&lt;/a&gt;

I have questions about how this affects browsers and search engines:

  1. Is this meant to have some effect on the browser? If so, what is the intended effect and does it work?
  2. Is this meant to have an effect on search engines? Is it similar to a no follow link or does it not have any effect on search engines at all?
A: 

Is it possible that this tag is not actually part of the web page, but is being inserted by your firewall software?

Simon Nickerson
+1  A: 

I have never seen this kind of syntax, and I'm quite sure it has no standardized meaning.

However, interestingly, Microsoft Outlook marks the href part of links this way as a security feature:

When you receive an HTML message, links in it may not work or the File, Open dialog will open, asking to associate an executable file with the link.

Looking at the source, you'll see the URL is prefixed with BLOCKED::, like this:

<A title=http://office.microsoft.com/ href="BLOCKED::http://office.microsoft.com/"&gt;Office Online</a>

This is a security feature in Outlook and may happen when URLs are copied from one email message and pasted into another message.

My guess would be that those links are actually copy+pasted links from a Microsoft Office document, and the title element somehow gets garbled in the process.

Pekka
Interesting, but in the poster's question it's the other way round (the title has "blocked", not the href).
Simon Nickerson
Simonn you are correct that the "blocked::" is in the title attribute. Pekka may be on to something though. Maybe someone cut and pasted from Outlook then corrected the href when it didn't work but the title remained as is. I will wait and see if anyone else is familiar with this issue or has another viable explanation.
Matt Spradley
"security feature" + "may happen" = known bug that we don't care to fix? Or is it just me? ;)
jensgram
@jensgram: The bug is that they prefix with an English word? The past participle of the verb "to block", meaning "to prevent access to"? And that they did this in the context of preventing access to links? We should all have bugs like that.
John Saunders
@John Of course. I was just amused by the wording. That may be due to me being a non-native English speaker, though.
jensgram