begin quoting Todd Walton as of Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:16:49PM -0800: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:14:17 -0500, RBW1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://tinyurl.com/3kkma > > It's probably just me, but the use of tinyurl and ilk kinda bugs me. > The point is to make a > http://long.complicated.url?slkj23434lsl.asp?unnecessary=yes&morecrapjusttoconfuseyou=yes > shorter, right? Excellent motive, I say. The TinyURL service is > handy and, just as importantly, apparently reliable. But aren't there > any informal netiquette rules governing its use?
It hasn't been around long enough. Some netiquette is *starting* to arise -- including both the real URL and the tinyurl corresponding to it is one example -- but it isn't establish quite yet. [snip] > I think that when a TinyURL is employed, the real link should also be > included. Plain and simple. If the real, long URL gets mucked up, so > be it. But at least it's there, and a person can see where they're > being taken before they follow the link, as well as the actual > Internet address being referred to being available for posterity's > sake. It might be a nice convention if creators of dynamic web-pages included a cut-and-pastable link on every generated page that was the minimal url for /that/ page. So on the page http://long.complicated.url?slkj23434lsl.asp?unnecessary=yes&morecrapjusttoconfuseyou=yes you'd have a link that would say http://long.complicated.url?slkj23434lsl.asp ...this would eliminate much of the need for tinyurl. -Stewart "Devising workable solutions that nobody will ever implement" Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
