How To Remove This HTML Comment by W3 Total Cache?

[Edwin]

I would like to remove this HTML comment on the bottom of the page, example from Yoast.com

<!-- This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Dramatically improve the speed and reliability of your blog!

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc
Database Caching 7/19 queries in 0.015 seconds using apc
Content Delivery Network via netdna.yoast.com

Served from: webserver.yoast.com @ 2010-02-18 14:42:27 -->

Anyone ideas/suggestions how to take care of this?

Thanks!

[mfields]

Why would you want to delete it? Your readers cannot see it and it may actually help you out someday. If you ever post to a forum where people have no access to your server, this comment will enable them to know that you have this plugin installed - which is valuable knowledge when it comes to debugging IMHO.

[chipbennett]

I would like to remove this HTML comment on the bottom of the page, example from Yoast.com

<!-- This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Dramatically improve the speed and reliability of your blog!
 
Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/
 
Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc
Database Caching 7/19 queries in 0.015 seconds using apc
Content Delivery Network via netdna.yoast.com
 
Served from: webserver.yoast.com @ 2010-02-18 14:42:27 -->

Anyone ideas/suggestions how to take care of this?

Thanks!

That HTML comment is coming from the ob_callback($buffer) function, on line 2465 of file lib\w3\plugin\TotalCache.php

Does the plugin have an options page? If so, is an option presented to disable adding those credits?

(If not, I question whether this plugin violates repository Guideline #4, as HTML source is indisputably "public-facing".)

[chipbennett]

Why would you want to delete it?

"Why" is rather irrelevant, IMHO. He's the end user.

Your readers cannot see it

They certainly can: View Source.

and it may actually help you out someday. If you ever post to a forum where people have no access to your server, this comment will enable them to know that you have this plugin installed - which is valuable knowledge when it comes to debugging IMHO.

I'm assuming that his reasons for wanting to disable it exceed any potential benefit from leaving it.

[mfields]

"Why" is rather irrelevant, IMHO. He's the end user.

I fail to see how my question is irrelevant, I was only asking.

They certainly can: View Source.

True, but IMO source code does not constitute content therefore someone who is visiting the site to seek published information will most likely not view source.

I'm assuming that his reasons for wanting to disable it exceed any potential benefit from leaving it.

My intention was to illustrate a reason why he might not want to delete it. Assumptions are best left unmade in my experience.

[Edwin]

Does the plugin have an options page? If so, is an option presented to disable adding those credits?

I haven't seen it, I've checked for it but I couldn't find it.

The HTML comment location reference helped a lot!

Thanks guys.

[chipbennett]

I fail to see how my question is irrelevant, I was only asking.

Granted. However, it's not relevant with respect to answering his original question. Regardless, as you said, it is always good to be helpful. :)

True, but IMO source code does not constitute content therefore someone who is visiting the site to seek published information will most likely not view source.

If the HTML source isn't intended to be viewed, then why would attribution be injected as HTML comments?

HTML source is viewed by two entities: spiders, and users who explicitly choose to view source (and many do, for many reasons).

In either case, injecting attribution text (and a link) in the HTML source - even commented out - represent both attribution and outbound links that the user is not given control over.

My intention was to illustrate a reason why he might not want to delete it. Assumptions are best left unmade in my experience.

IMO, the intended purpose of those HTML comments are not for troubleshooting - and more direct means of verifying active plugins exist, so the HTML comments aren't even especially useful for troubleshooting.

But, that aside, I'd like to go back to repository Guideline #4:

The plugin must not embed external links on the public site (like a "powered by" link) without explicitly asking the user's permission.

Along with the most recent interpretation of that guideline, regarding what not to do:

Insert external links (like a credit link, <a href=”http://example.com/”>My Awesome Plugin by Awesome Sauce</a>) into their blog without explicitly asking their permission, or make the default option be to insert the link.

(Yes, Mark's post was somewhat satirical; however, this interpretation has been stated various times in various places, and is the current de facto interpretation. Mark's post was the most readily available source.)

This plugin:

1) Embeds an external credit link
2) Provides no option to disable the link - much less, making the link default to "off"

The only argument that I can see is that HTML source isn't "public-facing". However, given that anyone at a given website (i.e. the public) can view the source, I find this argument to be specious.

I don't really want to set off another rant thread, so:

Do you agree with my interpretation? Should I approach MarkR directly regarding this question? Maybe better yet: should I approach the plugin author directly?

[mfields]

Granted. However, it's not relevant with respect to answering his original question. Regardless, as you said, it is always good to be helpful. :)

I believe that my question was 100% on the topic of the original post. Had I asked "how much wood could a wood chuck chuck... ?" Then I could accept an argument of irrelevance. Please bear in mind that I was not attempting to answer the question: I sought to ask my own question regarding the topic presented and supply a bit of knowledge from my own personal perspective.

If the HTML source isn't intended to be viewed, then why would attribution be injected as HTML comments?

HTML source is viewed by two entities: spiders, and users who explicitly choose to view source (and many do, for many reasons).

HTML source is often viewed by another entity: "Those trying to help" (support volunteers and consultants). From my experience, comments like these can be an indispensable part of debugging a problem.

In either case, injecting attribution text (and a link) in the HTML source - even commented out - represent both attribution and outbound links that the user is not given control over.

IMO there is a rather larger difference between a commented url and an anchor tag.

IMO, the intended purpose of those HTML comments are not for troubleshooting - and more direct means of verifying active plugins exist, so the HTML comments aren't even especially useful for troubleshooting.

While I will admit that in this case, the comment does read as an advertisement - literally. This is but one example of a practice that is used all of the time in WordPress plugins. In my experience, comments such as these have aided in debugging an issue where I do not have Administrator access to a site.

But, that aside, I'd like to go back to repository Guideline #4:

Along with the most recent interpretation of that guideline, regarding what not to do:

(Yes, Mark's post was somewhat satirical; however, this interpretation has been stated various times in various places, and is the current de facto interpretation. Mark's post was the most readily available source.)

This plugin:

1) Embeds an external credit link
2) Provides no option to disable the link - much less, making the link default to "off"

The only argument that I can see is that HTML source isn't "public-facing". However, given that anyone at a given website (i.e. the public) can view the source, I find this argument to be specious.

I don't really want to set off another rant thread, so:

Do you agree with my interpretation? Should I approach MarkR directly regarding this question? Maybe better yet: should I approach the plugin author directly?

Do you agree with my interpretation?

I can only state my opinion based on my past experience which is: Comments like these can be helpful and I appreciate their existence. I wish that more plugins would identify themselves whenever they print html to the document. One of the most helpful parts of this identification is presenting a link to the plugin's homepage where more information can be obtained.

Should I approach MarkR directly regarding this question?

If you feel strongly enough about it then you should by all means get in touch with him.

Maybe better yet: should I approach the plugin author directly?

If you feel strongly enough about it then you should by all means get in touch with him.

[chipbennett]

IIMO there is a rather larger difference between a commented url and an anchor tag.

I see no practical difference. In both cases, the URL is intended to be seen, and visited.

While I will admit that in this case, the comment does read as an advertisement - literally. This is but one example of a practice that is used all of the time in WordPress plugins. In my experience, comments such as these have aided in debugging an issue where I do not have Administrator access to a site.

That it reads like an advertisement is the main concern.

I can only state my opinion based on my past experience which is: Comments like these can be helpful and I appreciate their existence. I wish that more plugins would identify themselves whenever they print html to the document. One of the most helpful parts of this identification is presenting a link to the plugin's homepage where more information can be obtained.

What does this plugin do, that it needs to print HTML at all?

I can buy the argument that, when a plugin actually prints useful HTML, that it should surround that output in some kind of identifying HTML comments - but this plugin doesn't appear to be doing that.

Also, I see no need for such HTML comments to include a URL. Plugins are pretty simple to search, whether or not they are in the directory.

If you feel strongly enough about it then you should by all means get in touch with him.


If you feel strongly enough about it then you should by all means get in touch with him.

These were also general questions to everyone reading this thread. I'm really wondering if anyone else sees this the same way I do (or if they couldn't care less), and whether or not exposure of this practice would be beneficial.

[chipbennett]

Interesting response from Mark Jaquith:

It's in an HTML comment, so it's not a link. HTML comment doesn't deface the site, doesn't abuse SEO. I'd encourage it!

Apparently HTML-comment credits/URLS/advertisements are kosher, even though they are public-facing, do not default to "off", and require a donation to the project or a footer link to disable:

he can disable it by supporting the project with a tweet or a link in blogroll / footer etc

This makes no sense to me...