On 09/20/10 19:59, Tim Harig wrote: > On 2010-09-20, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:46:38 +0000, Tim Harig wrote: >> >>>> I'm not particularly convinced that these are *significant* complaints >>>> about URL-shorteners. But I will say, of the last couple hundred links >>>> I've followed from Usenet posts, precisely zero of them were through >>>> URL redirectors. If I can't at least look at the URL to get some >>>> initial impression of what it's a link to, I'm not going to the trouble >>>> of swapping to a web browser to find out. >>> >>> But why should the rest of us be penalized because you make the choice >>> not to use (or not take full advantage of) all of the tools that are >>> available to you? >> >> I'm with Aahz... best practice is to post both the full and shortened >> URL, unless the URL is less that 78 characters, in which case just post >> the full version. > > Posting two URLs rather defeats the purpose of using a URL shortening > service in the first place; but, if that is what you feel is effective, > then by all means, do so. You are the master of your posts and you have > the right to post them using whatever methods and formating that you > feel is most effect; but, other people should have the same priviledge. > > Many people find tinyurl and kin to be useful tools. If you do not, > then are free to rewrite them in your reader, ignore posts using these > services, or even add a rule blocking them to your score/kill file so > that you do not have to view their ugliness.
IMO, url-shortener are most (only?) useful in presentations or printed materials. When you instead have a full-fledged computer, using which you can just click on the link or copy paste; they're unnecessary and counter-productive. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
