On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 17:15, Rich Ernst wrote: > Todd Walton wrote: > > > 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? > > > > I've seen people use it when the URL they were referring to was > > completely within reason. It was as if they were just trying to hide > > the real thing. TinyURL themselves actually condone this. From their > > front page: > > > > "Hide your affiliate URLs > > > > "Are you posting something that you don't want people to know what the > > URL is because it might give away that it's an affiliate link. Then > > you can enter a URL into TinyURL, and your affiliate link will be > > hidden from the visitor, only the tinyurl.com address and the ending > > address will be visible to your visitors." > > > > ?dirty=yes > > > > The other beef I have with TinyURL use is the reliability of the > > TinyURL service. They've been around since at least February of 2002. > > That's three whole years. But what happens when, say, 20 years from > > now they're gone? What if somebody else buys the domain name and > > starts cashing in on all those dormant tinyurl hyperlinks out there? > > What about the freaking page I wanted to link to?!?? > > > > Proposal: > > > > 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. > > > > This isn't a tirade against you, specifically, RBW. You just happened > > to trigger a pre-existing peeve-mode. > > I always put both the tinyurl and the full url in for just such reasons. > > Rich
I suppose I should consider this too since the tech set does not have a problem with long URL's. Before hearing this thread my sole motivation was to make things simpler for the usual tech clueless users I deal with all the time and who for some reason get long URL's mangled or some-such in their MUA. They are all in the MS environment and I don't even ask for details anymore. I've just adopted the MS method of dealing with them: "Don't think, just Click this "black box" to go where this link will lead you". TinyURL fits the bill in those circumstances. RBW -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
