Short and long links

Well, I think the matter is now relatively clear for me. Let me try to summarize.

Some people don't mind long URLs, and some people do, specially if they use more than the normal width because of ancient programming. Some people like one word links and some will not click on them even with a ten feet pole. Some people will tell you how to shorten links but not click on shortened ones themselves. Some people don't know and aren't interested in shortening links, and will click on anything.

Most important for me: it can be a serious risk to click on any link, but most specially in not full URLs.

So it would seem to me that it is better not to use shortened links, at least in forums using such ancient technologies as these.

Please correct me if I have got something wrongly.

r_harvey - 8:59am Feb 5, 09 PST (#3 of 13) posted an example, which I sometimes use... if I feel like it and have time to compose the HTML code

When you hold your mouse over the "Short, descriptive text" of an actual coded link, the long URL will display so you know where it is going to take you... that does not, of course tell you what will be there when you click, but you can read the actual address

Hover your mouse over the "read subscriptions" link below... it shows you the address under the description

> Claudio was asking about whether it's safe to *post* them, not to *follow* them.

Oh, that's entirely different. So I guess it's okay to post whatever you like, just tell people not to look at it.

And it's okay for the url-x place to do whatever they like with the link and any packets they see going by, too.

> In some browsers, a very long url will not wrap and will stretch the table the forum is in. Some people feel it looks untidy. Some people don't mind.

It's not about minding or not. If you have a 200-character URL, other text on the page will also stretch to 200-character lines, which will often require you to horizontally scroll to read every single line of text. The whole handling of URL-shortening by the software here is simply ten years out of date and embarrassing; it should be a no-brainer to be able to parse this stuff and make it fit.

People have different opinions about them Claudio, that's all. It's not recommended or, er, unrecommended, except according to people's personal preferences. Some will urge you to use them, others will tell you not to. Your call :)

Deprecated, that's the one.

In some browsers, a very long url will not wrap and will stretch the table the forum is in. Some people feel it looks untidy. Some people don't mind. You get the idea :)

All methods mentioned work exactly the same on Mac or Windows systems, so do what you prefer, no need to apologise since you'll upset somebody either way.

I was thinking of the short links one can post using the method in message #3 above, or any of the ones quoted in my message #1, where what the reader sees is perhaps a single descriptive word such as "here" instead of the full URL.

If it is not a recommended practice, or there will be people who won't click on the link on principle, why have I been encouraged several times to use these shortened versions?

Sigh. Claudio was asking about whether it's safe to *post* them, not to *follow* them.

And what, banned everywhere, or just in these forums? Are you going to run round snitching on people who use them? Or maybe you want Dorothy to get busy on that.

> is it really unsafe to post/open shortened links?

You mean those tinyurl-like things, where you don't have any way to know where that click will take you? I wouldn't ever follow one. They are easy to abuse and difficult to police. I think they should be banned.

I also think the software here should be smart enough to add spaces to or truncate the text portion of automatically converted links, so that pages look right on all browsers.

> And even then it depends who posted it

That is always the key, even with long URLs.

It's not dangerous to post one, Claudio, but just possibly if you click on a link without knowing where it goes, you might be at some risk from a malicious poster.

Shortened urls (such as tiny.url or metamark ones) are useful, but I am less likely to follow them than one with a brief description of what it's about as illustrated above. And even then it depends who posted it ;)

Depending on what browser you use and how it's set up, you may be able to hover over one of those links with a description in the middle and get a clue about where you're headed from the status bar, where the full url will be shown.