Timeline for What is our stance on pad.lv URLs?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2018 at 20:27 | answer | added | user364819 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 26, 2018 at 14:36 | answer | added | Dan | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 22, 2018 at 0:31 | answer | added | muru | timeline score: 6 | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 20:07 | history | edited | pomsky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2018 at 20:06 | comment | added | pomsky | @dessert Not exactly the output, I meant they reduce the character-count. But that's just a loose comment showing my preference. What I meant to ask is whether pad.lv URLs are frowned upon here like other services (bit.ly, tinyurl etc.) or considered okayish. | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 19:43 | comment | added | dessert | Let's see how a link like yours looks like (assuming it's the output you're worried about): pad.lv/1532508 vs. bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-shell/+bug/1532508 – that's quite long, but the long one contains useful information: It's on launchpad, it's a bug report, it's about gnome-shell. The short one does neither. Doesn't matter at all if you use a meaningful(!) alternative title (see above). | |
| Feb 21, 2018 at 19:14 | comment | added | dessert |
Why do you find it useful? I usually use an alternative title, e.g. see [this launchpad bug](https://bugs.launchpad.net/…), where there's no difference in the output. Is it the comment's character limit or the actual output you're worried about?
|
|
| Feb 21, 2018 at 18:22 | history | asked | pomsky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |