There should be new, optional Markdown syntax to allow a post author to specify that a certain link or type of link should open in a separate tab, such that the reader isn't taken away from the question.

To borrow a quote below from Nathan Tuggy:

The impact of an unwanted new tab is usually a little less than that of an unwanted same-tab navigation.

Three of the prime annoyances with the current behavior that continue to get me (and I know others too):

  • Clicking (sometimes inadvertently) on an image or sample code link while I'm in the middle of typing a comment. Since it opens in the same window, when I click back, my in-progress comment is lost.
  • In the middle of crafting an answer, I often don't notice that new ajax notifications have come in, and in some of those cases, click away, and then come back. I can continue editing my answer no problem, but the ajax notifications are gone (and the items they announced do not appear without a hard refresh), and if I missed them, I could spend a lot of time editing an answer when someone else already provided a decent answer. This has happened to me several times. If clicking back worked predictably (i.e. the ajax notifications were still there, or the new comments/answers just appeared), it wouldn't be so much of a problem.

  • I sometimes fall into a trap I've seen described elsewhere: I click to a SQLfiddle link provided by an asker, then start making changes, and have to abandon those changes to go back and check some detail from the question. If only all SQLfiddle links automatically opened in a new tab, or if someone had edited in some markdown that made it so, or I weren't so forgetful to force that behavior myself...

In these (and several other cases, described below), I wish that the link could have been specified to open in a new tab.

Other suggestions in the past have asked for all links (or all external links) to open in a new window, by default, without exception and with no user control (author or reader). Even worse, the commonly-targeted duplicate says, almost verbatim:

Please open all links in a new window.
EDIT: Never mind, don't change a thing.

No wonder it is ; it is asking for status quo. That doesn't make it a useful duplicate target.

I'm suggesting that this be made optional, without changing the current and default behavior, for the following sorts of links:

  • Images. Like blogs and forums, the post format on SE sometimes makes it difficult to include an image properly demonstrating a problem or solution - I end up doing work in Photoshop to crop/resize/butcher in order to make it fit so that it is readable. I sometimes link to the original in a larger size, but I don't think it's intuitive to launch an image that overtakes the current browser window, requiring a user to click their back button in order to return to the post. Lightbox would be an attractive alternative here, but that wasn't the solution chosen earlier this year.
  • Larger code samples. Sometimes users need to post a repro of their problem, and it is easier to host a script file on github or other similar services than to try to put a large script in a post (for database-related posts, for example, sometimes a lot of sample data is required to reproduce a problem). For something someone might ultimately download to run on their own machine, or might just visually inspect, it doesn't make much sense to open that within the same window and lose the context of the post that linked to it.
  • Scratchpads. For lack of a better word. There are several services we use where we can play with code samples related to the question or answer, such as Data Explorer, jsfiddle, SQLfiddle, and several others. Similar to the above, it is more intuitive for these to be in a different tab than the post rather than replacing it, since things will often need to be compared side-by-side rather than back, memorize, forward, memorize.

One of the things that prompted me to promote this feature request even though similar, more all-encompassing ones have been denied in the past, is that several of these services did not exist back in 2009 - the way we answer questions has evolved, and continues to evolve.

Example syntax:

[link text][1][newtab]

[1]: http://s4.postimg.org/something/something.png

Or inline:

[link text](http://s4.postimg.org/something/something.png)[newtab]

The resulting HTML would have target=_blank, and should also use title or other attributes to indicate the behavior for the visually impaired (as per this UX answer).

I have a couple of unresolved thoughts on this request:

  • I don't know technically how it could be restricted to only these sorts of links; I know we don't want to keep a list of image formats and online services to check against and maintain (though we seem to be okay doing that with things like LMGTFY). I also don't know if this restriction would be necessary up-front just to guard against suspicions of potential abuse, or whether using it for other types of links should even be categorized as abuse (ironically, I'm guarding here against suspicions of potential objections).

  • I don't know whether there needs to be some visual cue how a link is planning to behave, but if this is determined to be necessary, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to do. Microsoft used some globe with an arrow pointing out of it back in the 1990s, but a simpler implementation would be to underline links that launch and not underline links that replace, or vice-versa if the style on the current site is to always underline links.

Yes, users can consciously choose to open a new window using various methods like Ctrl+Click, right-click, etc. But if you're going to scream "don't take my control away from me!" then don't ignore that if you really, really, really want your links to replace the current content instead of opening a new tab, especially if you know that certain types of links will likely do that, you can simply drag the link to the current address bar, which gives you your control right back (on this site and on all other sites that put target=_blank on all of their links, or even just the external ones).

There was a study done about whether people know how to open a link in a new tab, and I'll spare you the suspense: no they do not. And I suspect the cross-section of those and our audience - especially the steady stream of new users - is not insignificant. The model most web sites have been following for years is that at least external links open in a new tab, precisely because even one audience member might not know how to do that on their own (or may get flustered when they expect to see an image or code snippet in a new window instead of taking them away from the post they were reading). I know we like to be different, but we can't be afraid to try to make the experience a bit better for newer users in certain scenarios, for fear that it would be "too normal."

Now, I know that it is not practical to make this a user option, primarily because of the way the HTML for posts is stored. (It would be prohibitively expensive to store multiple copies of the post to conditionally serve the right one, or to parse and correct all links in all posts at serve time. Caching can prevent some of this, but for active posts I would be nervous about the additional overhead.)

But I also know - and it is clear given the number of times this has come up - that I am not the only person in our community who feels as follows: It is not always the best option to move someone away from the current page to show them certain types of content while they are in the processing of reading or writing a post or testing the answers it contains.

Clearly there is some divide in the community, and this is neither a straightforward "no, no links should ever open in a new tab" nor a "yes, links should always open in a new tab" case:

This is far from what I would call "consensus"

(Thankfully, I'm not asking for either of those absolutes.)

  • This request is a little unclear to me. Are you suggesting that all images, larger code samples, and scratchpads be made to open in a new tab, as well as those using the suggested [newtab] syntax, or are you suggesting that only those links using the [newtab] syntax open in new tabs? – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 19:54
  • @Adam I'm suggesting that markdown be made available so that authors can optionally make such links open in a new tab, not automatically. It was clearer in the original version of the question, I think, but someone took it upon themselves to edit that stress point away. So, you would be able to continue authoring your posts the same as always, without fearing for ruining someone's Internet. Others, like me, could make appropriate links open in a new tab (like showing an enlarged version of a screen shot). – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 19:57
  • 3
    Out of curiosity, are you then going to complain when someone should, in your estimation, be using that syntax? Because this won't solve your problem without a lot of educating users, or going around and editing other people's answers. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 20:00
  • 2
    @Adam Am I going to complain? No. Will I try to lead by example? Of course. Not sure how my future behavior is relevant to this specific feature request - I could complain about a lot of things, whether this is implemented or not. Can we stick to the issue instead of making presumptions about my future behavior? – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 20:02
  • 1
    The reason I bring it up is that we have implemented features in the past that caused a lot of unwanted comments - "Your accept rate is too low, I don't see the point in answering" and "Please use code blocks for code" for instance - and in each case we either have taken the option away (accept rate) or spend considerable time educating users to not make such comments, and to either submit an edit, or move along rather than making other users, usually new users, feel unwelcome because they didn't know the syntax. If this feature is implemented, it's necessary to look at its side effects. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 20:05
  • Sorry, I reopened it. I forgot that I have dupe hammer for feature requests, and only intended to suggest to others that this question isn't much different than the existing question asking about markdown syntax for new tab links. How to add a link to answer / question or a comment that opens in new tab? I don't think I should make that decision unilaterally, but the community might agree. Interesting to see your comment on that question three years ago, though. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 20:29
  • 1
    @AdamDavis Right, interesting. Because nobody's ideas or opinions are allowed to develop or change over time? I've deleted my comment, because I don't feel that way anymore. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 20:33
  • 1
    Yes. We, the content providers, the authors wish to use the tools at our disposal to make a better answer. In an answer, I might distill a white paper in a few salient points. But I want someone to read the whitepaper to get the full meaning so I link to it, inline, but it pops open in a new tab. Otherwise, if I want to try to ensure someone reads the entirety of my answer and end up with a References section to my answer which look like a halfarsed footnotes/endnotes section. – billinkc Sep 15 '15 at 21:08
  • 1
    An additional thought point on the matter: when a user is composing a question, the "Questions that may already have an answer" links all open a new browser tab - even though by definition they'll be internal links. – billinkc Sep 21 '15 at 0:33
  • 1
    Can't you just right-click on a question and say "open in a new tab/window"? – DonielF Apr 24 '17 at 18:19

No, because with this, suddenly, you'll never know if the poster created a link that opens a new window/tab, or not. Never mind the different style of posting amongst different users, I doubt a single user would be so mindlessly consistent in using the special syntax every time.

Right now, I know that if I simply click a link anywhere on a Stack Exchange site it will re-use the current window/tab. If I want to open a new window/tab, I need to Ctrl-click/middle-click/right-click-and-choose-open-link-in-new-tab. To some people that's not how they'd prefer it, but at least it is consistent. Designing for "least astonishment" and all that.

I'm afraid that I think this is a worse idea than having all user-created links open new tabs, and I think that one's pretty bad.

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    I don't know whether there needs to be some visual cue how a link is planning to behave, but if this is determined to be necessary, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to do, it says in the question. – Andriy M Sep 15 '15 at 20:37
  • 4
    @AndriyM I really dislike visual clutter, and think that the existing interface is already bordering on too busy. Why are we adding even more visual cues? Why not just let the user decide? Why take control from the user and presume that we know better? – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 20:47
  • 1
    @AdamDavis: Why do links in a chat open in a new window and you don't complain about that? Is it all right that control has been taken away from you in that regard? Someone presumed they knew better – and they were right, it makes sense to open links posted in chat in a new window. In the same way, it makes perfect sense to me to open the original size screen shot in a new window when I click on it in a question or answer. – Andriy M Sep 15 '15 at 20:53
  • 4
    Chat's different. It's dynamic; an app. That's different than a mostly static web page. – ale Sep 15 '15 at 20:57
  • 2
    @AlE. Do you know how many times I've spent mounds of effort continuing to edit a question, after I missed an ajax notification and clicked away, then came back to continue editing, and after submission discovered that someone else posted an answer before me? QA posts are not all that static, especially when new, and if you click away and click back, those ajax notifications disappear, and the items they were announcing do not show up without a refresh. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 21:00
  • 2
    Programmers have always been making decisions for users, including the decision of allowing the user to decide for themselves. There's nothing wrong in having an option to change the behaviour to what makes more sense in a particular situation. – Andriy M Sep 15 '15 at 21:00
  • 2
    @AndriyM I don't like chat behavior, but it's a fundamentally different interface, and it's internally consistent - you don't have to specify [newtab] when you add a link to it, you don't have to look at a link and analyze it before you click, you know what it's going to do because it's chat and it always does that. This proposal asks us to deal with links on a case by case basis. As a wise person said on a similar question, "Why don't you let the user decide if they want to open in a new tab or not? Browsers today give us plenty of control over this behavior." – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 21:15
  • 1
    @AdamDavis: It's not that consistent. When you click on the same link in a chat transcript, it opens in the same window. That was confusing for me at the beginning. Anyway, chat may well differ substantially from a Q&A site proper but my point was, there are situations where changing the default behaviour just makes sense. I agree on the issue of inconsistency you've raised in your other answer but at the same time I don't buy the "Until new users [...] find the icon" argument. Again, this is about improving the default behaviour by changing it to what makes more sense in a specific situation. – Andriy M Sep 15 '15 at 21:32
  • 1
    @AndriyM Chat transcripts are obviously static pages, and it's still consistent. "improving the default behaviour by changing it to what makes more sense" is in the eye of the beholder. I would hate the proposed change. It makes no sense to me. When I want a new tab BOOM I have a new tab and it takes absolutely no more effort than a left click. It's a middle click. No additional mouse movement, no clicking then selecting from a menu, no dragging (which is annoying on a trackpad). This proposal takes the ease of use away from me and forces me to work harder. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 21:36
  • 2
    @AndriyM And that doesn't even address the fact that I can no longer click on a link without finding the icon, or lack of an icon, so I know how I should click on it. It's really unreasonable to make the user do additional work to figure out how to proceed. Right now I decide what I want with a link, then I click according to my desire. With this proposal I have to decide what I want, look at the link, and then figure out how to get what I want based on the link and the icon. I can't figure out how this "makes sense" and should be enabled for everyone. Your browser is capable - use it. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 21:38
  • @AdamDavis: With this proposal I have to decide what I want, look at the link, and then figure out how to get what I want based on the link and the icon – wrong, you'd still be able to middle-click to open in a new tab if that's your preferred method. With this proposal you'd be unable to open a link in the same window if the author decided it would make no sense to do so. And the OP has described situations where not only he thinks it doesn't make sense but, in his opinion, it's also disruptive to open links in the same window. They want an option to prevent an accidental disruption. – Andriy M Sep 15 '15 at 21:44
  • Anywhere isn't strictly true. Links in chat typically open in a new window for example.... – Erik Sep 16 '15 at 15:32


Don't remove the choice from readers.

All major browsers offer a choice between “open the link with the site-set policy” and “open the link in a new tab”. Most browsers do not offer a choice to open the link in the same tab: you typically need to install an extension, if it's at all possible. By forcing a link to open in a new tab, the author imposes an inconvenience on most readers.

There are occasional cases where it makes sense to open a new window — for example to display help about a web application. Over the years, the abuse of that feature has led browsers to crack down on this feature and limit the ability to spawn popups.

A link in a Stack Exchange post does not meet any of these few cases.

If you like links to be opened in new tabs so much, install an extension in your browser that makes it the default. Or just use middle-click or long-click or whatever it is your browser uses.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    What about the readers who don't know you can do that, and to whom replacing the entire current page is more disruptive than opening a second tab? – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 20:44
  • 8
    @AaronBertrand What about the readers who don't have a browser that can open links in the same tab, and to whom opening a new tab is more disruptive than replacing the current page? One of us gives readers a choice, the other one don't. No contest. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Sep 15 '15 at 20:55
  • What is so harmful about opening a new tab, compared to replacing the content I was currently reading and potentially losing vital information that I wouldn't have missed otherwise (such as ajax notifications of new comments/answers, which are lost on clicking back)? If a new tab shocks you so, you can always just close the first tab and move on. And if you want to prevent the new tab in the first place, you could always change your behavior (which you must do everywhere else now if this is so offensive to you): drag the link to the current address bar. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 20:58
  • 2
    @AaronBertrand Switching back to the first tab is a hassle. Especially because I use tabs a lot, so it tends to take a long time to find it — and in practice it means that I end up with a lot of tab clutter because I didn't notice that the old tab was left behind. Plus it split the navigation history. As for dragging the link to the address bar, that would require far better motor skills than mine. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Sep 15 '15 at 21:06
  • 1
    I have a hard time right-clicking on my trackpad. Also, sometimes I am in keyboard only mode, and I don't have muscle-memory for Ctrl+Click yet. So I guess we're even on the motor skills argument. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 21:11

If I understand correctly, your proposal, in a nutshell, is this:

I believe certain types of links should open in a new tab, and I would like new markdown syntax that will allow people to write links in their posts that open in new tabs, but only for these specific types of links. This would also add a visual indicator of some sort so people could tell if the link will open in a new tab or not.

This strikes me as strange because you are attempting to solve your problem - you don't want to middle-click, or control click, etc to open a new tab - by making other people do more work - adding [newtab] after links they think should open in a new tab.

I don't see how this fixes your problem. Not only will we have to educate users so they understand there's a choice, but you'll find many refuse to use them, and they won't exist on older posts.

Then you'll have to look for the little icon every single time you want to click on a link. to determine the "correct" action. So now we have three types of links - those that can never open a new tab, those that might open a new tab and don't, and those that might open a new tab and do.

Until new users get used to it and find the icon and its meaning, it'll be utterly confusing to them - "Some links open in a new tab, and some don't, and it's not consistent!"

So even if I agreed with the "new tabs" crowd, I'd absolutely disagree with this specific implementation.

Let me illustrate the way people use the site now, and how they'd have to use it if this were implemented:

  1. Decide whether you want the link open in a new tab or the existing tab.
  2. Click the link with the middle finger for new tab (or ctrl-click for some users), or left finger for existing tab.

As you can see, you decide how you want the tab opened, and you can instantly do this without further consideration.

With the proposal, though, here's the new process:

  1. Decide whether you want the link open in a new tab or the existing tab.
  2. Review the link to see if it is a special link and has an icon or other indicator that it forces a new tab.
    • If it doesn't have an indicator, then click the link with the middle finger for new tab (or ctrl-click for some users), or left finger for existing tab.
    • If it does have an indicator, then click the link with the left finger for a new tab, or click, hold, and then drag the link to the address bar to use the existing tab.

So the downside of the proposal is that it requires you to carefully check each link, and it adds an extra required effort if you disagree with the author and want to open in the existing tab.

Right now the effort is the same whether you want the existing tab or a new tab. With this proposal the effort goes up for everyone.

| improve this answer | |
  • Yes, I already have an answer, but this one argues a different point and wouldn't fit well in my other answer. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 21:05
  • 1
    I'm not trying to solve my problem. I'm trying to make it possible for authors to prevent similar disruptions and frustrations from having the same experiences I have. I have observed this casually for some time now, and I suspect many users who lose a comment or miss Ajax notifications or otherwise get disrupted in their workflow precisely because a click (perhaps an inadvertent one) don't even know there's a way to complain about this stuff. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 22:34

It's bad enough when a site takes the choice away from the user; now you want to do it for some authors, for some links? That's terrible UX; it's not consistent at all and it's a burden for the users on both sides -- the guy whose browser is spawning unwanted tabs and the guy who had to write the markdown to do it.

If you don't change the browser default, the user still has a choice. You have identified content that you would rather see in a new tab, and all modern browsers make it easy for you to get that behavior without inconveniencing anybody else. However, if the author of a web page decides that links are going to open in new tabs, there is nothing the user can do, short of applying custom code, to undo that.

So on one side, people who want new tabs have to do a little more work (right-click or control-click or long-press or whatever) and people who don't get their preference by default. On the other side, people who want new tabs get them automatically and so does everybody else, regardless of what they wanted. You're going to need a much stronger argument before that proposition looks reasonable -- you need to establish that it is never reasonable to want to follow those links in the same tab. You have not made that case.

| improve this answer | |

I heartily disagree.

Comments are short, and are intentionally treated as second class citizens to answers and questions - ephemeral, meant only for clarification and minor correction.

This problem has already been solved for the important content - answers are saved, so if you lose your place and come back you get your draft back.

It is not that important to so drastically change the user experience and user interface for want of a comment draft. If you are frequently drafting very long comments with multiple references, you are probably not using them as intended, but even then it shouldn't be difficult to recreate the essential points. I do, however, know that some users draft their comments on an external editor - this works fine for them, and may suit your needs as well.

Further, having this behavior on some links, but not all, forces users to discern the difference - Am I clicking a link that opens a new window? Am I clicking one that goes to that page? This is a burden you place on all users, not just those that prefer one way or the other.

The workaround you suggest is more work than a middle click, so all else being equal, the total effort expended will be less keeping the current interface as-is.

If, at some future point, Stack Exchange decides to move to a "new tab" modal, I strongly suggest they use it for every link. Mixed sites are the worst user experiences between the three choices - let's not be fence sitters.

| improve this answer | |
  • Adam, that is one specific use case I mentioned, but that is not the whole story. Disagreeing because you think this is solely about comment drafts is unfair. Further, users have to discern what you're talking about on every site on the Internet - this isn't just about SE (and if you look in the sidebar at some of the related questions, this behavior is already making us fence-sitters here, because it is not consistent throughout the site). – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 19:41
  • 1
    "The workaround you suggest is more work than a middle click" that's only relevant if you also provide supporting evidence that indicates the relative frequencies of opening-in-a-new-tab-not-by-default and opening-in-same-tab-not-by-default are broadly similar, or that the former is less common. If, on the other hand, it's one third as common to need to open in the same tab, even twice as much effort per link is a clear net win. – Nathan Tuggy Sep 15 '15 at 19:44
  • I'm also not clear why you'd think mixed-link sites are the worst, but I think that needs significant backing: it's not at all self-evident, either from first principles or from my own experience. – Nathan Tuggy Sep 15 '15 at 19:45
  • @NathanTuggy Please provide that information so we can make a better decision. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 19:48
  • 1
    @AaronBertrand But on this one site, we do not have to discern, and it's a site many users use daily, so it's not at all like going to a random site elsewhere and having to determine on the fly what they're going to do. Disagreeing because the only consequence of the current system you provide isn't good enough is fair. Please consider enumerating 1) the other bad consequences and 2) the impact those bad consequences have on a majority of users if you want to convince me. Note that I'm no one of consequence, though, so you really shouldn't focus on me. Make your case. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 19:51
  • I gave three use cases later in the post - images, large code snippets, and services like jsfiddle. Did you get that far? Did you read why I think those types of links are important to not replace the current content when clicked? – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 19:53
  • @AdamDavis: I don't have any detailed data on hand; I can only guess that, if reasonably used on the sort of links best-suited to opening in new tabs, that it would be substantially less common to need to override it. Anecdotally, I use my shortcut to open in same tab at least a good order of magnitude less than opening in a new tab. (I suppose one should also consider that the impact of an unwanted new tab is usually a little less than that of an unwanted same-tab navigation.) – Nathan Tuggy Sep 15 '15 at 19:56
  • the impact of an unwanted new tab is usually a little less than that of an unwanted same-tab navigation <--- nailed it – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 19:58
  • 2
    @AaronBertrand I've read your entire post multiple times. I'm sorry to make you feel so defensive about this. You've expressed why you believe those types of links should open in new tabs, but not how the existing experience is bad. You hit the back button and you've lost nothing in those cases, except, as I specifically address, a comment draft. In every case the user is currently in control, and you want to hand that control to the writer of the question or answer. – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 20:02
  • @Adam Take the code sample example, if I am reading an answer about how to solve a problem, and there is a link to some longish code sample, does it make sense to open it in a new tab, where I can compare the code to the text about it, or to open in the same tab, so I have to click back and forward and back and forward? It seems like in a lot of cases replacing the entire current page only to have to hit back (and to prevent side-by-side comparisons) is unnecessary. You might like that behavior, but there is sound logic against it, too. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 20:04
  • 1
    @AaronBertrand "does it make sense to open it in a new tab" We have plenty of questions and answers about which method "makes sense". I specifically chose not to address it in this answer and don't intend to in comments. Consider answering one of the many other questions about new tab links if you want to discuss the pros and cons of new tab vs existing tab. For what it's worth, what "makes sense" to me is the opposite of what "makes sense" for you. Having canceled each other out, what evidence do you have more people will benefit with your proposal than will be hurt by it? – Pollyanna Sep 15 '15 at 20:13
  • @Adam I don't know how revisiting old questions that are asking for something different and have all been status-declined and have much-higher up-voted and accepted answers is going to help. And I don't know how I can further clarify that there are cases where replacing the current content is less useful than opening it separately - I focused most of my effort on that part of the question, in an effort to differentiate it from older, declined requests where people just said "new tab good." If you're choosing to simply ignore my justifications, shrug. – Aaron Bertrand Sep 15 '15 at 20:18
  • 1
    @swasheck Stack Exchange is a network of questions and answers sites. By metonymy, Adam means the people who engineer those sites. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Sep 15 '15 at 21:07
  • 2
    @swasheck The statement that “there is no Stack Exchange” is not technically accurate by any stretch. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Sep 15 '15 at 21:26


Initially I was ambivalent.

I'm supporting this idea now for three primary reasons.

  1. Opening the link in a new tab is my default behavior anyway.
  2. The answers thus far are all against, so there isn't an answer for supporters to support.
  3. I respect Aaron's contributions to the Stack Exchange network, and I believe that he truly wants what is best for users (especially new/struggling users). If he feels this is worth the heartache to fight for it I will trust him.

If someone wants to post a more substantial yes answer I'll be happy to remove this one (if deemed appropriate).

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .