# \[OT\] Tiny URLs **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [10 March 2005 06:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864 "2005-03-10T06:10:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Francis\_Hwang1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecae2f/32.png) [@Francis\_Hwang1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Francis_Hwang1)\ **Post date:** [13 March 2005 00:54 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/21 "2005-03-13T00:54:16Z")
> And on the issue of long links being split into several lines? That's a problem with the e-mail client you are using. Sure, but people are going to use the clients they're going to use. Sometimes they don't even have control over what client they use, for business reasons. Communication is a two-way street. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the available data for email client usage is not nearly as rich or recent as that for web clients. The best is probably the survey at [http://www.clickz.com/experts/archives/emailstrategies/tech/article.php/1428551](http://www.clickz.com/experts/archives/emailstrategies/tech/article.php/1428551) , but this study is a voluntary survey with 500 respondents, and it's 3 years old. So it's a little harder to say "When the % of readers have clients that can handle super-long URLs reaches 95%, let's forgo the short URLs and the other 5% will just have to deal" the way you can say the same about, say, Cascading Style Sheets. > [1] [http://myreallylongurlhere.com/really/really/really/really/long](http://myreallylongurlhere.com/really/really/really/really/long) Incidentally, this URL is really just a baby compared to some of the monstrosities we've got these days. It's nothing compared to, say, [http://tinyurl.com/6:](http://tinyurl.com/6:) [1] [http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&mqmap.x=300&mqmap.y=75&mapdata=%252bKZmeiIh6N%252bIgpXRP3bylMaN0O4z8OOUkZWYe7NRH6ldDN96YFTIUmSH3Q6OzE5XVqcuc5zb%252fY5wy1MZwTnT2pu%252bNMjOjsHjvNlygTRMzqazPStrN%252f1YzA0oWEWLwkHdhVHeG9sG6cMrfXNJKHY6fML4o6Nb0SeQm75ET9jAjKelrmqBCNta%252bsKC9n8jslz%252fo188N4g3BvAJYuzx8J8r%252f1fPFWkPYg%252bT9Su5KoQ9YpNSj%252bmo0h0aEK%252bofj3f6vCP](http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?ovi=1&mqmap.x=300&mqmap.y=75&mapdata=%252bKZmeiIh6N%252bIgpXRP3bylMaN0O4z8OOUkZWYe7NRH6ldDN96YFTIUmSH3Q6OzE5XVqcuc5zb%252fY5wy1MZwTnT2pu%252bNMjOjsHjvNlygTRMzqazPStrN%252f1YzA0oWEWLwkHdhVHeG9sG6cMrfXNJKHY6fML4o6Nb0SeQm75ET9jAjKelrmqBCNta%252bsKC9n8jslz%252fo188N4g3BvAJYuzx8J8r%252f1fPFWkPYg%252bT9Su5KoQ9YpNSj%252bmo0h0aEK%252bofj3f6vCP) Something tells me this isn't quite when Tim Berners-Lee had in mind ... Francis Hwang > **[fhwang - Overview](https://github.com/fhwang/)** > > fhwang has 66 repositories available. Follow their code on GitHub. > **···** > > On Mar 11, 2005, at 12:41 AM, John W. Long wrote: ---
**Author:** ![Douglas\_Livingstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@Douglas\_Livingstone](https://rubytalk.org/u/Douglas_Livingstone)\ **Post date:** [13 March 2005 01:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/22 "2005-03-13T01:32:02Z")
How about a happy medium: I would much rather see people use the footnotes [[http://tinyurl.com/6\](http://tinyurl.com/6%5C)] method which is becoming popular. And then later.... [[http://tinyurl.com/6\](http://tinyurl.com/6%5C)] [http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp](http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp)? ovi=1&mqmap.x=300&mqmap.y=75&mapdata=%252bKZmeiIh6N%252bIgpXRP3bylMaN0O4 z8OOUkZWYe7NRH6ldDN96YFTIUmSH3Q6OzE5XVqcuc5zb%252fY5wy1MZwTnT2pu%252bNMj OjsHjvNlygTRMzqazPStrN%252f1YzA0oWEWLwkHdhVHeG9sG6cMrfXNJKHY6fML4o6Nb0Se Qm75ET9jAjKelrmqBCNta%252bsKC9n8jslz%252fo188N4g3BvAJYuzx8J8r%252f1fPFWk PYg%252bT9Su5KoQ9YpNSj%252bmo0h0aEK%252bofj3f6vCP > **···** > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:41:14 +0900, John W. Long \ wrote: > > > I would much rather see people use the > > footnotes[1] method which is becoming popular. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_A\_Lambert2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/43a26b/32.png) [@Jon\_A\_Lambert2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jon_A_Lambert2)\ **Post date:** [13 March 2005 10:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/23 "2005-03-13T10:49:12Z")
Francis Hwang wrote: > 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.) I've used them in web forums where badly written naughty word filters prevent the posting of a link. For example, on one forum I was preventing from posting the link to [www.objectwatch.com](http://www.objectwatch.com). It took me a while to discover the naughty word. 😉 J. Lambert ---
**Author:** ![Aredridel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ebca7d/32.png) [@Aredridel](https://rubytalk.org/u/Aredridel)\ **Post date:** [14 March 2005 21:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/24 "2005-03-14T21:59:48Z")
You mean used on web pages like [http://rubyurl.com/DuYkv](http://rubyurl.com/DuYkv) \ > **···** > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:19:23 +0900, Francis Hwang \ wrote: > > > 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 🙂 > > > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Britt6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@James\_Britt6](https://rubytalk.org/u/James_Britt6)\ **Post date:** [10 March 2005 15:01 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/25 "2005-03-10T15:01:54Z")
Thomas Kirchner wrote: > **···** > > > \* 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](http://tinyurl.com/cunt) > > > > > > just came about by chance, and suggests a fairly juvenile (i.e. unreliable) group of people are running tinyurl.com. > > > > Hah... well, I had never heard of that happening before. Where did you > > get that url? > > \> > > I came across some article discussing assorted tiny URLs that used select vocabulary. > > Sure, it's an in-joke, no user is going to see that URL, but it says something about the people running the site. > > James ---
**Author:** ![PA1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/71c47a/32.png) [@PA1](https://rubytalk.org/u/PA1)\ **Post date:** [10 March 2005 15:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/26 "2005-03-10T15:14:18Z")
Looks very much like an industrial grade service 😛 That said, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when no one in its right mind will ever generate such monstrous URLs and therefore render those services obsolete. "1.Understanding URIs" -- W3C Note, "Common HTTP Implementation Problems", January 2003 > **[Common HTTP Implementation Problems](https://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#uri)** > > Better understanding server-side > Web technologies to avoid misusing them Cheers > **···** > > On Mar 10, 2005, at 16:05, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > > I personally use qurl.net: > > -- > PA, Onnay Equitursay > [http://alt.textdrive.com/](http://alt.textdrive.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Thomas\_Kirchner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbce88/32.png) [@Thomas\_Kirchner](https://rubytalk.org/u/Thomas_Kirchner)\ **Post date:** [10 March 2005 16:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/27 "2005-03-10T16:47:26Z")
For those who don't feel like clicking (and to tie this thread into the list), qURL is written in Ruby with ActiveRecord. It's being a bit flaky today, but it's a useful service and another example of ruby pride 🙂 Also, you can configure it to transfer instantly, delayed, or manual. Tom > **···** > > \* On Mar 11 0:05, Austin Ziegler (ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) wrote: > > > I personally use qurl.net: > > > > [qurl.net - This website is for sale! - qurl Resources and Information.](http://qurl.net/pages/about) ---
**Author:** ![James\_Britt6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a87d85/32.png) [@James\_Britt6](https://rubytalk.org/u/James_Britt6)\ **Post date:** [10 March 2005 19:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/28 "2005-03-10T19:07:11Z")
Michael Campbell wrote: > > 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? Um, pretty much every person I've met who has exhibited routine juvenile behavior has proved to be unreliable over reasonable amounts of time. Maybe I've just had bad luck associating with the wrong group of childish people. > Are you concerned now > about the reliability of it, which hasn't yet (to me, anyway) proven > to be bad, or something else? I'm concerned (somewhat; I'm not really losing sleep over any of this) over whose business model I'm supporting, and what happens to the data that is likely begin collected. > I'll agree that the url mentioned is in bad taste, but I would suspect > it's an "in-joke" that got out. Probably. But there it is. James ---
**Author:** ![vruz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/4bbf92/32.png) [@vruz](https://rubytalk.org/u/vruz)\ **Post date:** [10 March 2005 23:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/29 "2005-03-10T23:47:25Z")
> Since IRC chats are often archived, and mailing list posts too, I > haven't found many cases where durability isn't a good thing. Exactly, besides, many of these tiny urls are based on a temporary hash table that is recycled every now and then. If you're exchanging valuable, long lasting information, tinyurls may not be good to keep a record for posterity. ---
**Author:** ![Robby\_Russell3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/5fc32e/32.png) [@Robby\_Russell3](https://rubytalk.org/u/Robby_Russell3)\ **Post date:** [14 March 2005 23:08 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/30 "2005-03-14T23:08:46Z")
You know... I just realized something. I \*just\* subscribed to RubyTalk on Sunday. I just saw this post: [http://rubyurl.com/XcJEm](http://rubyurl.com/XcJEm) from Friday... and without having never read the discussion about TinyURL, qurl, Rubyurl.net, etc... I had thought of the idea last night and started RubyURL.com..and seeing that post..well, it's kind of freaky. heh ...the world works in strange ways sometimes. -Robby > **···** > > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 06:59 +0900, Aredridel wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:19:23 +0900, Francis Hwang \ wrote: > > \> > > \> 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 🙂 > > \> > > \> 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. > > \> > > > > You mean used on web pages like > > [http://rubyurl.com/DuYkv](http://rubyurl.com/DuYkv) \ > > -- > /\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* > \* Robby Russell | Owner.Developer.Geek > \* PLANET ARGON | [www.planetargon.com](http://www.planetargon.com) > \* Portland, OR | robby@planetargon.com > \* 503.351.4730 | blog.planetargon.com > \* PHP, Ruby, and PostgreSQL Development > \* [http://www.robbyonrails.com/](http://www.robbyonrails.com/) > \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*/ ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Garrison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@Alan\_Garrison](https://rubytalk.org/u/Alan_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [10 March 2005 15:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/31 "2005-03-10T15:28:37Z")
PA wrote: > > I personally use qurl.net: > > Looks very much like an industrial grade service 😛 > > That said, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when no one in its right mind will ever generate such monstrous URLs and therefore render those services obsolete. > > "1.Understanding URIs" > -- W3C Note, "Common HTTP Implementation Problems", January 2003 > [Common HTTP Implementation Problems](http://www.w3.org/TR/chips/#uri) > > Cheers > > -- > PA, Onnay Equitursay > [http://alt.textdrive.com/](http://alt.textdrive.com/) Perhaps if the resources are available, someone could set up a "rubyurl.net" site that functions in the same way? Possibly restricted to, say, RubyForge accounts for setting a rubyurl up with the intent that it must be used for Ruby-ish purposes? (No shock site links, political flamebait sites, etc) > **···** > > > On Mar 10, 2005, at 16:05, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > -- > Alan Garrison > Cronosys, LLC \<[http://www.cronosys.com](http://www.cronosys.com)\> > Phone: 216-221-4600 ext 308 ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Davies1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dick\_Davies1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Dick_Davies1)\ **Post date:** [11 March 2005 00:34 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/32 "2005-03-11T00:34:26Z")
\* vruz \ [0347 23:47]: > \> Since IRC chats are often archived, and mailing list posts too, I > \> haven't found many cases where durability isn't a good thing. > \> > > Exactly, besides, many of these tiny urls are based on a temporary > hash table that is recycled every now and then. > > If you're exchanging valuable, long lasting information, tinyurls may > not be good to keep a record for posterity. But surely you just bookmark the url you get redirected to? I generally post both the long version and a tinyurled one, then anyone with religious objections can click on the long one and it still looks ok in mutt. > **···** > > -- > 'When the door hits you in the ass on the way out, clean off the smudge > your ass leaves, please' >     -- Alien loves Predator > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Hwang1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecae2f/32.png) [@Francis\_Hwang1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Francis_Hwang1)\ **Post date:** [11 March 2005 01:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/33 "2005-03-11T01:23:00Z")
You might have. I've known tons of reliable, juvenile people. I'd argue that this description would fit a lot of computer programmers. Francis Hwang > **[fhwang - Overview](https://github.com/fhwang/)** > > fhwang has 66 repositories available. Follow their code on GitHub. > **···** > > On Mar 10, 2005, at 2:07 PM, James Britt wrote: > > > Michael Campbell wrote: > > > > > Other than the obvious ad hominem aspect, what data do you have that > > > supports your juvenile == unreliable claim? > > > > Um, pretty much every person I've met who has exhibited routine juvenile behavior has proved to be unreliable over reasonable amounts of time. > > > > Maybe I've just had bad luck associating with the wrong group of childish people. ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Neukirche1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Christian\_Neukirche1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Neukirche1)\ **Post date:** [11 March 2005 13:33 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/34 "2005-03-11T13:33:41Z")
vruz \ writes: > > Since IRC chats are often archived, and mailing list posts too, I > > haven't found many cases where durability isn't a good thing. > > Exactly, besides, many of these tiny urls are based on a temporary > hash table that is recycled every now and then. > > If you're exchanging valuable, long lasting information, tinyurls may > not be good to keep a record for posterity. This is also true for no-paste services like rafb.net/paste. Please \*don't\* link to them in your blogs (IRC is fine, of course... that's what they're made for), as those entries will vanish over time. > **···** > > -- > Christian Neukirchen \ [http://chneukirchen.org](http://chneukirchen.org) ---
**Author:** ![Thomas\_Hurst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Thomas\_Hurst](https://rubytalk.org/u/Thomas_Hurst)\ **Post date:** [13 March 2005 15:29 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/35 "2005-03-13T15:29:13Z")
> \>I personally use qurl.net: > > Looks very much like an industrial grade service 😛 It's been alive for over a year, what more do you want? 🙂 I'm planning on factoring it into a Rails application when I have time. > That said, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when no one in its right mind > will ever generate such monstrous URLs and therefore render those > services obsolete. I wouldn't hold your breath. > **···** > > \* PA (petite.abeille@gmail.com) wrote: > > > On Mar 10, 2005, at 16:05, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > -- > Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst >     [http://hur.st/](http://hur.st/) ---
**Author:** ![Anonymous\_Coward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/94ad74/32.png) [@Anonymous\_Coward](https://rubytalk.org/u/Anonymous_Coward)\ **Post date:** [11 March 2005 03:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/36 "2005-03-11T03:28:07Z")
Dick Davies wrote: > \* vruz \ [0347 23:47]: > > > > Since IRC chats are often archived, and mailing list posts too, I > > > haven't found many cases where durability isn't a good thing. > > > > Exactly, besides, many of these tiny urls are based on a temporary > > hash table that is recycled every now and then. > > > > If you're exchanging valuable, long lasting information, tinyurls may > > not be good to keep a record for posterity. > > But surely you just bookmark the url you get redirected to? I often search ruby-talk (and other) archives for various information. No idea how persistent TURLs are; the 'real' version is certainly better in that respect. > I generally post both the long version and a tinyurled one, then > anyone with religious objections can click on the long one and it still > looks ok in mutt. E ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_Duncan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b487fb/32.png) [@Paul\_Duncan](https://rubytalk.org/u/Paul_Duncan)\ **Post date:** [11 March 2005 16:33 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/37 "2005-03-11T16:33:51Z")
> \>Michael Campbell wrote: > \>\>Other than the obvious ad hominem aspect, what data do you have that > \>\>supports your juvenile == unreliable claim? > \> > \>Um, pretty much every person I've met who has exhibited routine > \>juvenile behavior has proved to be unreliable over reasonable amounts > \>of time. > \> > \>Maybe I've just had bad luck associating with the wrong group of > \>childish people. > > You might have. I've known tons of reliable, juvenile people. I'd argue > that this description would fit a lot of computer programmers. What Francis said. Most of my friends are juvenile, and some of them are reliable. I don't think you can rule out a site just because of one joke. > **···** > > \* Francis Hwang (sera@fhwang.net) wrote: > > > On Mar 10, 2005, at 2:07 PM, James Britt wrote: > > > Francis Hwang > > [http://fhwang.net/](http://fhwang.net/) > > -- > Paul Duncan \ pabs in #ruby-lang (OPN IRC) > [http://www.pablotron.org/](http://www.pablotron.org/) OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562 ---
**Author:** ![Douglas\_Livingstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@Douglas\_Livingstone](https://rubytalk.org/u/Douglas_Livingstone)\ **Post date:** [11 March 2005 20:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864/38 "2005-03-11T20:47:02Z")
> I don't think you can rule out a site just because of one joke. [http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html](http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html) Though I guess the specific problem with the TinyURL joke is that it crosses a "good taste" line... though that probably depends where your political peferences lie 😉 Douglas [Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ot-tiny-urls/16864.md?page=1)