Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar URL-shortener sites? While I can understand the value, I don't particularly care to have to click through one site to get to another, and would much prefer to see the complete, direct URL.
I've noticed a few people here post links that went through tinyurl.com, and don't bother following them. My loss, perhaps, but I prefer lengthy-but-transparent URLs.
(Unless, of course, the redirection site were to be written in Ruby and run by people I know.)
James
James Britt wrote:
Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar URL-shortener sites?
I (naively) choose to view the world in a positive manner (aka a
Jeffersonian view), and so far it's worked out.
I am, however, one of the 1.5M government credit card holders
for which Bank America lost the data tapes and so, my outlook may
change as my doppelgangers start competing with me.
Regards,
···
--
Bil Kleb
http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov
In general I agree, I'd much rather see where a link is taking me. The
exception is for some sites (Google Groups comes to mind) where the URLs
are literally 3+ lines to paste. They're as useless for clarity as they
are for length. (Plus tinyurl has been around a while and most people
trust them, though you can't necessarily trust its users.)
Tom
···
* On Mar 10 15:10, James Britt (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar
URL-shortener sites? While I can understand the value, I don't
particularly care to have to click through one site to get to another,
and would much prefer to see the complete, direct URL.
I would rather people just use HTML links properly, so that you see the label
instead of the underlying URL. Doesn't work too well for plain text email,
but no one said email looks as nice as a webpage anyway 
···
On Thursday 10 March 2005 06:10, James Britt wrote:
Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar
URL-shortener sites? While I can understand the value, I don't
particularly care to have to click through one site to get to another,
and would much prefer to see the complete, direct URL.
--
Lee.
I have a simple tiny url service running at http://enigo.com/shortlink
It shows you where you are being redirected to, so no surprises.
Kirk Haines
···
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:10:34 +0900, James Britt wrote
(Unless, of course, the redirection site were to be written in Ruby
and run by people I know.)
In the interest of web durability, I prefer not to use them.
···
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:10:34 +0900, James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@neurogami.com> wrote:
Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar
URL-shortener sites? While I can understand the value, I don't
particularly care to have to click through one site to get to another,
and would much prefer to see the complete, direct URL.
I've noticed a few people here post links that went through tinyurl.com,
and don't bother following them. My loss, perhaps, but I prefer
lengthy-but-transparent URLs.
(Unless, of course, the redirection site were to be written in Ruby and
run by people I know.)
* Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb@nasa.gov> [0316 11:16]:
James Britt wrote:
>Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar
>URL-shortener sites?
I (naively) choose to view the world in a positive manner (aka a
Jeffersonian view), and so far it's worked out.
http://makeashorterlink.com does similar, but at least that says
'you are going to tubgirl.com' or whatever.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W538214AA
I also like the output when I tried making a link to http://google.com:
"URL already short:
If we made you a shorter link it would be longer or about the same length,
so we're not going to bother."
···
--
'If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a
house of cards... Checkmate!'
-- Zapp. Brannigan
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Yup, exactly, I usually would paste in the link, but those ViewCVS URLs
are a mile long...
Yours,
Tom
···
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 21:57 +0900, Thomas Kirchner wrote:
* On Mar 10 15:10, James Britt (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
> Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar
> URL-shortener sites? While I can understand the value, I don't
> particularly care to have to click through one site to get to another,
> and would much prefer to see the complete, direct URL.
In general I agree, I'd much rather see where a link is taking me. The
exception is for some sites (Google Groups comes to mind) where the URLs
are literally 3+ lines to paste.
Thomas Kirchner wrote:
...
In general I agree, I'd much rather see where a link is taking me. The
exception is for some sites (Google Groups comes to mind) where the URLs
are literally 3+ lines to paste. They're as useless for clarity as they
are for length. (Plus tinyurl has been around a while and most people
trust them, though you can't necessarily trust its users.)
Interesting. On what basis do people trust them? I doubt this url
http://tinyurl.com/cunt
just came about by chance, and suggests a fairly juvenile (i.e. unreliable) group of people are running tinyurl.com.
James
Aredridel wrote:
...
In the interest of web durability, I prefer not to use them.
That's a legitimate concern, and long-term there is the good chance that these proxied URLs will stop working. However, for link-of-the-moment sort of needs, the potential transience is not an issue.
James
Well, I can't say I've ever actually seen these used in web pages anyway. It's almost exclusively for contexts where a long URL make break, which is mostly email. (Maybe chat, but all the chat clients I've seen handle long URLs quite well.)
And HTML email has all sorts of complications to it, too.
Francis Hwang
···
On Mar 10, 2005, at 10:29 AM, Lee Braiden wrote:
I would rather people just use HTML links properly, so that you see the label
instead of the underlying URL. Doesn't work too well for plain text email,
but no one said email looks as nice as a webpage anyway
But honestly, the redirection URI is just as likely to stick around in the long-term as the URI of the thing you're linking to in the first place, isn't it? I mean, if you link to a particular blog entry on my site, and then one day I change my blogging tool and its attendant URIs without internal redirections, you've got the same problem. I suppose going through tinyurl.com gives you two possible points of failure, so that's a definite issue, but I just think that for the most point durability of URIs is not really that possibility.
It's interesting, anyway ... I wonder what'll happen if tinyurl.com ever decides to shut down for whatever reason. Maybe they could just release some massive file that was a hash of key strings to URIs? Probably nasty privacy issues there. It's like they've become a part of the infrastructure in some small way.
Francis Hwang
···
On Mar 10, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Aredridel wrote:
In the interest of web durability, I prefer not to use them.
Aredridel wrote:
>
> In the interest of web durability, I prefer not to use them.
>
This is a great point and the very reason I wish people would not use this kind of service. I would much rather see people use the footnotes[1] method which is becoming popular. And on the issue of long links being split into several lines? That's a problem with the e-mail client you are using.
···
--
[1] http://myreallylongurlhere.com/really/really/really/really/long
--
John Long
http://wiseheartdesign.com
I find blade [1] to be a far superior archive of ruby-talk to google groups, mostly because I can figure out what to look for my the X-Mail-Count header, and a link is as simple as: [ruby-talk:133269]
But I feel that blade has a better interface for reading archived email than google groups.
[1] http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/
PGP.sig (186 Bytes)
···
On 10 Mar 2005, at 04:57, Thomas Kirchner wrote:
* On Mar 10 15:10, James Britt (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
Informal poll: Are there others as leery as I am of tinyurl and similar
URL-shortener sites? While I can understand the value, I don't
particularly care to have to click through one site to get to another,
and would much prefer to see the complete, direct URL.
In general I agree, I'd much rather see where a link is taking me. The
exception is for some sites (Google Groups comes to mind) where the URLs
are literally 3+ lines to paste. They're as useless for clarity as they
are for length. (Plus tinyurl has been around a while and most people
trust them, though you can't necessarily trust its users.)
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://segment7.net
FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
Hah... well, I had never heard of that happening before. Where did you
get that url? Personally, I have no problem with it... it's their site,
and they don't give out that url when you ask for a shortening, so you
know what you're in for if you follow it.
Tom
···
* On Mar 10 23:29, James Britt (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote:
Interesting. On what basis do people trust them? I doubt this url
http://tinyurl.com/cunt
just came about by chance, and suggests a fairly juvenile (i.e.
unreliable) group of people are running tinyurl.com.
Interesting. On what basis do people trust them?
They've never been down that I've ever seen. The service has been
around for a long time. It's free. It works. It's robust.
I doubt this url
xxxx
just came about by chance, and suggests a fairly juvenile (i.e.
unreliable) group of people are running tinyurl.com.
Other than the obvious ad hominem aspect, what data do you have that
supports your juvenile == unreliable claim? Are you concerned now
about the reliability of it, which hasn't yet (to me, anyway) proven
to be bad, or something else?
I'll agree that the url mentioned is in bad taste, but I would suspect
it's an "in-joke" that got out.
> In the interest of web durability, I prefer not to use them.
That's a legitimate concern, and long-term there is the good chance that
these proxied URLs will stop working. However, for link-of-the-moment
sort of needs, the potential transience is not an issue.
Since IRC chats are often archived, and mailing list posts too, I
haven't found many cases where durability isn't a good thing.
(In response to news:9ff6d7ad2d50f4065516b94022d20e82@fhwang.net by Francis
Hwang)
It's interesting, anyway ... I wonder what'll happen if tinyurl.com
ever decides to shut down for whatever reason. Maybe they could just
release some massive file that was a hash of key strings to URIs?
Probably nasty privacy issues there. It's like they've become a part of
the infrastructure in some small way.
Thinking of that, nothing stops you from creating that file yourself, given
that the urls are .. short 
k
···
--
code manufacture & ruby lab at tua.ch - und andere Domains günstig und einfach online kaufen auf top-domains.ch