| 2:51 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I agree I am really touchy on the urls being hidden and if I really don't know the member won't go to the link. I like to see were I am going and suggest this be a change.
|hiding urls in a webmaster forum makes no sense. none. zero. |
| 2:52 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Changing it back seems like the way to go
| 3:04 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
what about "urls allowed" after like 50+ posts? I am pretty sure these strict rules have kept WebmasterWorld manageable... it is a high-trafficked forum and all the viagra/gambling/p*rn "seo beginners" might just swamp it... which is annoying and work. I guess there must have been a reason for disallowing urls?
| 3:09 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I would also like to see the full URLs again.
I like pontifex's idea of only showing the URLs after a certain number of posts, although people might be confused about the inconsistency.
| 3:21 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
BIG DITTO on impairing the ability to drop URLs until a member reaches a certain (quality) level of participation.
That would kill drive-by spam in a heartbeat.
| 3:32 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Showing URLS should allowed after reaching a level of trust, perhaps related to a high quality contribution, not by reaching X number of posts.
Doing it so will increase the nonsense messages posted only to be able of posting urls.
| 3:34 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
"full url display" and "url drop privileges" are two different discussions.
in this thread we are talking about going back to the full url display that existed before the january, 2010 URL Display Updates [webmasterworld.com].
| 4:23 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The old URL display often broke my screen layout if an URL with a long query string was used. With the new ones that hasn't happened to me yet. But I understand that in the forums like Apache, they break all kinds of code examples. Maybe some sort of in-between with an option while posting a message:
We already have:
Disable [codes] for this message?
Disable graphic smile faces for this post?
Why not an extra:
Disable URL compression for this message?
| 4:28 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
How about full display unless character limit is reached, as determined by the forum.
I hate the new system, though I understand the "phishing" or "null length" concerns.
| 4:29 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
How about adding a setting in preferences? That way, users who want to always see short URLs can have it configured for that, and users who want to always see full URLs can have it their way too. (I would vote for the default to be show the full URLs).
| 6:58 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yep, I think posting the url's is a must as it makes it much easier sharing problems with your site this way rather than having to extract all of the code and css and insert into a post. Sometimes it does make sense simply adding a code but I think you should have the choice.
| 7:04 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yup, show the complete URL.
And skip the url shortening too. That's a definite click thru killer for me.
| 7:57 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
pontifex idea sounds good.
| 7:59 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Interesting feedback so far. Personally, I think the current URL posting rules are one of the best things about this site, and hope that does not change.
It keeps the discussion on general issues that could potentially apply to anyone, as opposed to very specific things that only apply to one site.
I think it also keeps things at a more professional level and keeps this board at a level above many "help desks" that many forums seem to end up sinking to.
The discussions here don't "fix a site", they discuss and solve problems in ways that may never have been discussed had a specific url been the basis of discussion.
| 9:00 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Going off-topic here people. There's already another thread for "should we allow links to personal sites". This is about how those links are actually displayed
| 9:16 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|there is currently no way to see or copy a usable url without clicking through the redirect script |
I don't know why a redirect script is required, however, the url can be seen in the status bar and (in Firefox) you can right-click a link and choose "Copy link location" from the context menu. Of course, this will need to be edited after pasting to remove the redirect script reference.
That said, I prefer the old system too.
| 9:19 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
One simple addition I would like to see is a link at the top of the page to "My Threads". I quite often use this but have to go through the "Control Panel" link.
| 9:28 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
If full urls are displayed, auto inserting a "rel=nofollow" will help discourage seo-types. I know that for security purposes, a number of places like the Internet Storm Center use "hxxp" to ensure they can't accidentally be clicked upon. Howerver, a user who chooses to go there can easily copy it.
Working in the I.T. security / reseller business, we get to see so many malware attacks that somehow battling rogue links would seem to be very important.
| 10:14 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|the url can be seen in the status bar and (in Firefox) you can right-click a link and choose "Copy link location" from the context menu. Of course, this will need to be edited after pasting to remove the redirect script reference |
- you can only see the full url in the status bar if you have enopugh room in your status bar.
i only see the redirect script and none of the destination.
- a url that requires editing is not usable, and the editing also requires translation of the percent encoding.
| 12:22 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm for full URLs
| 3:50 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
A full display of the URL would be great along with opening them in a separate window in place of the current.
| 8:56 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'd have to say I preferred the previous system as well. The current display requires more work to decipher and use (if you're after the actual URL).
| 9:28 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|showing the URLs after a certain number of posts |
Uh-uh. Please. No. Not unless you want to see thousands of 'me too' or 'great post' responses.
Anything based on post number encourages people to post no matter what.
I've seen a system where only posts over a certain character number were counted as a post and quick responses weren't. Still not ideal. The level of attempted spam might well go up from people cutting and pasting articles to start threads, and some short posts are very useful.
| 2:38 am on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I understand what you are saying here "
Uh-uh. Please. No. Not unless you want to see thousands of 'me too' or 'great post' responses."
I have also seen forums that moderate that kind of thing. I am not sure if it is via a script,
or an actual moderator. I do think that it may be a good idea to allow urls after a certain number of posts, but it would have to be moderated "in person". I don't know what you guys/gals have in the way of time to do that, but if it were possible, I am for it!
| 7:49 am on May 27, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Still not a thread about personal URLs. OP is about DISPLAY.