>>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298739
>>>>
>>>>May I ask you to write a few words to summarize what you want us to read more about? I don't have the time to read all the gazillions of new URLs you submit every day. If you have something to say, why don't you say it?
>>>
>>>I thought by now, after reading gazillions of my posts, you would have sussed out my convention for this particular UT forum. It is this:
>>>
>>>- if I post just a title and URL, it's whimsy e.g. the original post of this thread
>>>
>>>- if I include a summary, I think it's significant e.g. Message#1569158
>>>
>>>Thank you for your interest!
>>
>>Lately I very rarely click on your links, simply because I have seen too many articles which are of no interest to me, or a cartoon where I way too often don't understand the punchline. And sometimes it's not even a joke, it's more like a drawn story putting something on the edge. If you at least posted the cartoons in the Humor forum, it would be much clearer.
>>
>>Please don't misunderstand me, I don't want to complain. It's just that I want some kind of hint, should I follow the link or not. As it is now I have to guess, and I usually end up not clicking.
>>
>>NB! To further emphasize my problem, I even had to Google "whimsy", a word I don't remember having heard before.
>
>Well then, just stick to the posts that do have summaries!

In other words, status quo. It makes me sad to get no sympathy, but I won't mention it again.. To make you understand why I asked, I could post a few urls to Norwegian newspapers with no comments, but I won't. I made a similar remark to Tracy a few years ago, and she immediately understood the problem and began adding a few of her own words. Her ten extra seconds per message made me save hours.