Speakeasy forum

General discussion

A request

Since we now have the ability to use the [ ] commands to create a link, may I request that such services as tinyurl no longer be used? I don't like the idea of not knowing where some of these links are going to send me ahead of time is my rationale. With the link, at least no matter what text is used, a mouseover displays the destination URL.

{url=URL}link text{/url} is the format, replace the { } with [ ]

Thanks!
Evie Happy

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A request
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A request
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: A request

In reply to: A request

I agree. I NEVER click on a tinyurl unless it's from a trustworthy person, and never will. If I can't tell where I'm going with a mouseover it ain't worth the risk, all sorts of things considered.

DE

Collapse -
Can I bump this, because ...

In reply to: A request

I don't like opening links having no idea as to which sites I am being led to, and whilst I rely on the good auspices of our members not to send us "somewhere horrible", I would much prefer to see the URL for the link.

I bump this particularly because I am surprised that your post, Evie, has elicited so little response and perhaps it may have been missed by some?

Regards
Mo

Collapse -
How many times...

In reply to: A request

have you ended up at a site that didn't have anything to do with the post or the link text?
.

Collapse -
Re: How many times...

In reply to: How many times...

When I mouse over the link, it doesn't matter what someone puts in as text (I do recall someone putting "URL lookalike string" in for the text), the actual URL destination is displayed by the browser and I can choose to go to the source or decline if it is a suspect URL.

With the tinyurl service, you have no clue so I generally do not bother with those links.

Collapse -
OK...

In reply to: Re: How many times...

so why making more rules when you can simply ignore those links?

I know exactly what you mean, by the rolling over with the mouse. But I wonder how many times the poster has posted a link thru tinyurl which has been different from the topic and the link text...
Have you ever ended up at a porn site when somebody has posted something about a piece of news? Or a site infecting your computer with viruses? If not I don't see the problem here. And how hard is it to hit the X at the top right of your window and close it if you aren't interested? Let's not over moderate this place with more rules.
AFAIK, I have always ended up at a website that did have to do with the text and so forth I see no problem!
.

Collapse -
Re: OK...

In reply to: OK...

She's obviously concerned about being logged, Charlie. And you are well aware of that historical issue in SE.

Redirects are also a really big problem. I've gone to one site, only to watch the redirects bounce to up to six other sites, not of my choosing, and not what was posted. Some of those sites, I would NEVER wish to be known as having visited, and I sure don't appreciate knowing that they log there. I can set my security settings to where I don't do redirects, but I prefer to log them and see what happens for future reference. There are some people's links I simply will not follow anymore.

Viruses are everywhere, and you are at the whim of the independent server owner/operator to make certain their site is adequately maintained and protected. To get a system that catches viruses and attacks "on the fly" when in active communication on the web to the server, I am looking at over $5,000 to protect my private server and the domains on a particular server. That is the type of thing people with blogs or who use their own home machines as servers for, don't likely do to protect viewers.

You would hopefully hesitate to get into the car with an unlicensesd driver, particularly one who has never even had a license to begin with. The same with servers that are not protected. You need to know exactly where you are going to be ahle to calculate the risks of clicking on any link.

Since you list in your profile that you have advanced computer skills, you no doubt know this already though. . .

Collapse -
Actually ...

In reply to: Re: OK...

... someone here sent us to www.gay.com once fairly recently. There are some sites (like angelfire) that I avoid like the plague. Although I have security "up", I don't have a lockdown as that just ruins the good ways many features can be used for webcontent I want to see. Yeah, yeah, there are lots of utilities and configurations to customize, but frankly, having gone both routes I prefer my way ... much less work. It's not a matter of logging Diane, so much as it is that I simply don't go to sites that look suspect or that I cannot look up what they are before going there if there is any reason to be cautious. With the tinyurl, you get no such info, just click and off you are sent.

Charlie, you are just being difficult. It probably takes as much or more time to set up the tinyurl as it would to enter {url=} and {/url} ... even without using something such as Robotype!

It was a REQUEST. Not making more rules. Those that choose not to comply will be considered impolite AFAIC, your mileage may vary. When HTML was disabled, I could see the use for tinyurl, but with the [ ] commands enabled, I wouldn't be surprised if CNet saved themselves some moderating time by banning the use of such services that make links anonymous in the source.

Collapse -
Re: Actually ...

In reply to: Actually ...

"It was a REQUEST. Not making more rules."

That does seem like the case to me. Why would ANYONE who understands what CNet is all about - in particular a resource for computer/Internet problems and info - have an argument about being cautious (and respectful, IMO) in regard to computer/Internet issues.

I don't believe Evie asked/requested for anything that was above and beyond the obvious for any person that posts here.

I suppose, however, that if someone doesn't wish for their links to be reviewed by several members here they can continue to utilize a method that could "possibly" be unsafe.

Another one of those common sense things, IMO


--Marcia

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thankyou Marcia ... that's what I thunk!

In reply to: Re: Actually ...

Collapse -
Re: Actually ...

In reply to: Re: Actually ...

I think it's good common sense too. I won't click them either just because I like to know where I'm going before I go there. It's not that I don't trust the poster; I just want to be able to make those choices for myself.

I'll never forget the time someone posted here telling people he knew where to report kiddie porn sites. He posted a link, which wasn't a link to the reporting site but a link to a kiddie porn site! I could have lost my job, never mind my lunch.

Collapse -
Sorry...

In reply to: Re: OK...

But it doesn't say advanced and has never done so!

I don't even know what the tinyurl are! I just know that if not many - or basically none of the fellow members - has posted a link to something that doesn't have to do with the initial post, I don't see a major problem with it! At least not as much of a problem that they would need to make a rule. A recommendation would be ok though...
.

Collapse -
Is a request OK with you?

In reply to: Sorry...

Your profile did state advanced at one point.

If you don't understand what the tinyurl is, then you really shouldn't comment because you therefore don't understand the reason some, possibly many, would have an objection to them when a convenient alternative is available.

Collapse -
Or he could just ask Rosalie

In reply to: Is a request OK with you?

since she used tinyurl a lot.

Glad we got his approval though on this personal request and suggestion - whew! that was a close one as to what to do! Wink

Collapse -
I'm doing a double-take here...

In reply to: OK...

Ermmm - yes, one can ignore links, but folks have posted them because we might be interested and it must therefore be pointless posting links if they are going to be ignored. I see no question of over-regulating or over-moderating - people can post whatever links they want, but if they want people to read them (rather than ignore them, as you said...), then why not post the actual URL?

My own view is that "Better late than never", i.e. clicking the X button after the screen has loaded, is not really relevant, since by that time, it is too late of course.

Regards
Mo

Regards

Collapse -
How about links like...

In reply to: A request

http://www.hugeurl.com/?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

Please notice that this is the result of hugeurl instead of tinyurl Devil

Collapse -
Re: How about links like...

In reply to: How about links like...

I've gotta say, Clay, that I had NO idea my page could look like that! LOL

I've always made it a habit to put in the actual link plainly displayed. Very low-tech, but at least it shouldn't freak anyone out to see where they are going.

Collapse -
Whole links

In reply to: Re: How about links like...

... can play havoc with the format. ALso, long ones didn't work well (although it seems to be better after some tweaks to the new software) and if you have certain punctuation marks in the URL you get emoticons and split links.

CNet at least HAS the designated URL in the source for the post. Not the case with tinyurl. When clicking on links here in SE I ALWAYS mouse-over as a matter of habit. I expect most others to too.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re: Whole links

In reply to: Whole links

When clicking on links here in SE I ALWAYS mouse-over as a matter of habit. I expect most others to too.

I expect the "to" should be "do".

Other than that, I fully agree with you Evie. Happy

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You are correct ... I meant 'do' ... to was a typo

In reply to: Re: Whole links

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Welcome to Speakeasy, Vince M :-)

In reply to: Re: Whole links

Collapse -
Re: A request

In reply to: A request

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

REVIEW

Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.