2009/12/27 M. Fioretti <[email protected]> > On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 11:53:46 AM -0700, John Meyer wrote: > > > While I would say that using a shorturl on an e-mail site is a bit > > apropos, I would disagree with the short-urls automatically equal > > spam. > > They are not always spam, far from it, but create several problems it > would be bad to ignore: > > http://joshua.schachter.org/2009/04/on-url-shorteners.html > http://blog.grumet.net/2009/04/03/url-shorteners-are-bad-for-the-web > http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/08/19/howtofixurlshorteners.html > > so the less they're used, the better. > > Marco >
Marco, I agree that the use of URL-shorteners can be problematic ; indeed, after being chided once on this list by NoOp for using a tinyurl, I changed my practice to using a preview version, which while it added eight glyphs to the original 25, gave the reader the opportunity to see the URL to which they were being directed before clicking on it (needless to say, before posting, I always check to see that the URL leads to the site to which I intend it to lead - admittedly these can be spoofed, but that danger exists even with a full-length URL). I am not at all adverse to discussing this issue on the the list - even if many readers who come here for help with their OOo problems might find it OT - my objection was to what I felt to be the absurdly confrontative tone of Lars Nooden's message. Generally speaking, I think we need to cut each other a fair amount of slack on lists like the present ; otherwise we risk people fearing to post and driving away those who need help in droves.... Henri
