| 5:11 am on Jul 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I like # 2
| 5:27 am on Jul 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
3 looks too much like frames, 1 seems kind of incomplete.
2 is very clear that it's shortened, can't be mistaken for an error. I like 2 much better.
| 6:04 am on Jul 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I like 2! Sames reason already stated.
| 6:38 am on Jul 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 12:22 pm on Jul 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That's probably the best. Any other ideas on it?
| 5:17 pm on Jul 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I prefer 2 from the 3 options, but you might also want to consider urls with alot of trailing variable garbage such as ?pageid=q3ti8oy5voi8636, etc. That data is generally worthless to me, so ...'ing it wouldn't be a bad thing.
| 5:27 pm on Jul 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
a combo of #2 and also straight cutting everything after and including "?"
| 6:00 pm on Jul 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You'll need a pretty strong AI to figure out which of the CGI parameters contain useful information... ;)
Failing that, I think solution 2 with the proposed slash-off after any "?" would be close to optimal (leaving the "?" itself in place to show that it *is* a CGI URL).
Not sure if it's worth the effort to optimize, so that you remove only as many path elements as necessary, and only from the middle of the path string if possible.
Slightly less nice:
| 2:56 pm on Jul 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Maybe you also want to check this thread [webmasterworld.com] for yet another idea... ;)
| 2:59 pm on Jul 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I like number 2.