16

Easter eggs in Ubuntu vs. Easter eggs in Ubuntu – Spot the difference!
The second one has a shortened url; I find this downright rude.
What are your views on the usage of masked shortened-urls?
Is it wrong to edit such content and replace the shortened url with the original one?

  • 1
    I don't understand why they're "markdown-masked". They're just masked. Unless you're getting something that I'm missing, Markdown has nothing to do with the issue. – Oli Jan 20 '11 at 13:27
  • @Oli: My bad: not my area of expertise! :) I've edited the question. – Sid Jan 20 '11 at 13:48
  • 3
    I see you have a shortened URL in your question. Please note that as of now, we have decided that those are unwelcome here. Edit your question an replace it with the full URL, so that people know where they are going. Thank you :) ... ... ... :P – Stefano Palazzo Jan 20 '11 at 19:28
  • If the link title is descriptive enough, does it even matter what URL (shortened or otherwise) you are using? – LFC_fan Jan 21 '11 at 10:05
  • 3
    @LFC_fan as I explain, shortening services add another point of failure to the system and offer no benefit to us in return. Consider them highly dangerous. Shoot on sight. – Oli Jan 23 '11 at 0:13
26

Shortened URLs only have a very niche area of positive effect: communicating a long URL over a transmission where it would be costly to do it unencrypted (eg SMS).

We're on the web, we have no need for them. They hinder transparency and add more potential faults to the system (What if the shortener used goes out of business and is bought by a spammer? or just dies? The link fails.)

If you see one, comment on the post to let the poster know your incandescent rage (but be polite) and if you can, expand the link.

But yes, we should formally declare war on shortened URLs.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .