Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.197.230

Forum Moderators: brett tabke

Message Too Old, No Replies

how about we go back to displaying full urls?

     
2:41 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator phranque is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 10, 2004
posts:10847
votes: 61


- hiding urls in a webmaster forum makes no sense. none. zero.
- the way we are displaying the munged urls as (sub)domains is inconsistent.
- there is currently no way to see or copy a usable url without clicking through the redirect script.
2:51 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member bwnbwn is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 25, 2005
posts:3539
votes: 19


hiding urls in a webmaster forum makes no sense. none. zero.
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.
2:52 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 22, 2001
posts:781
votes: 0


Changing it back seems like the way to go
3:04 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from DE 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 25, 2002
posts:928
votes: 3


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?
P!
3:09 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

Moderator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator lifeinasia is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Dec 10, 2005
posts:5666
votes: 76


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)

Moderator

WebmasterWorld Administrator webwork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:June 2, 2003
posts:7907
votes: 43


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)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Mar 30, 2006
posts:1408
votes: 57


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)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator phranque is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Aug 10, 2004
posts:10847
votes: 61


"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)

Senior Member from KZ 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lammert is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 10, 2005
posts: 2932
votes: 20


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)

    Senior Member from GB 

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

    joined:Aug 11, 2008
    posts:1365
    votes: 130


    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)

    Senior Member from US 

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member fotiman is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

    joined:Oct 17, 2005
    posts:4996
    votes: 14


    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)

    Junior Member

    5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

    joined:July 4, 2007
    posts:193
    votes: 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)

    Senior Member from US 

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member ken_b is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

    joined:Oct 5, 2001
    posts:5792
    votes: 91


    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)

    Junior Member

    10+ Year Member

    joined:June 4, 2003
    posts:79
    votes: 0


    pontifex idea sounds good.
    7:59 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

    Preferred Member

    10+ Year Member

    joined:Dec 30, 2002
    posts: 437
    votes: 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)

    Senior Member from GB 

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

    joined:Aug 11, 2008
    posts:1365
    votes: 130


    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)

    Senior Member

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member kaled is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

    joined:Mar 2, 2003
    posts:3710
    votes: 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.

    Kaled.
    9:19 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

    Senior Member

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member kaled is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

    joined:Mar 2, 2003
    posts:3710
    votes: 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.

    Kaled.
    9:28 pm on May 25, 2010 (gmt 0)

    New User

    10+ Year Member

    joined:June 19, 2006
    posts:3
    votes: 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)

    Administrator

    WebmasterWorld Administrator phranque is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

    joined:Aug 10, 2004
    posts:10847
    votes: 61


    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)

    Senior Member

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

    joined:Jan 12, 2006
    posts:1304
    votes: 0


    I'm for full URLs
    3:50 am on May 26, 2010 (gmt 0)

    Preferred Member

    10+ Year Member

    joined:Mar 29, 2007
    posts:592
    votes: 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)

    Administrator from JP 

    WebmasterWorld Administrator bill is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

    joined:Oct 12, 2000
    posts:14966
    votes: 125


    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)

    Senior Member from GB 

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

    joined:Sept 16, 2009
    posts:1057
    votes: 67


    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)

    New User

    5+ Year Member

    joined:June 24, 2009
    posts:2
    votes: 0


    FranticFish-

    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)

    Senior Member from GB 

    WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member

    joined:Aug 11, 2008
    posts:1365
    votes: 130


    Still not a thread about personal URLs. OP is about DISPLAY.