HTML in email is usually just eye-candy. The shorter-URL strategies provide a link that will link correctly. While wrapped links have never been a problem for you, others are not as fortunate. And, still, others don't know that the part of the URL that didn't link should be added to the address line. So, I definitely think these URL-shortners are of great use, but mainly really for the longer addresses. ---Troth T. Hunt wrote: >I'm with Don, but even more so. I truly don't see the value or the need >for 'shorter links'. I've never found wrapped links to be a problem >and, as Don said, when you click on a 'shorter link', you have no idea >where you're going. > >It's kinda' like html in email; it's cute but it's also dangerous, and >totally unnecessary. > >Also, there's this, from Bob -- the "Keyboard Cowboy", > >">>As an example, lets look at the link: > >> > >>http://www.audiogalaxy.com/satellite/index.php?SID=89eb207ee536f0f730e > >>f195239bf6421 > >> > >>Using TinyURL, it becomes: > >> > >>http://tinyurl.com/5ccty > >> > >>The only problem with this is there is no way to recognize what the > >>link is later. To solve this, you can give the link a name - any > >>name > >>you want. To accomplish this, place a space, question mark, and > >>another space between the URL and the description. As an example, a > >>URL would look like -- URL ? NAME-of-URL. Using the TinyURL from > >>this post, it would look like this: > >> > >>http://tinyurl.com/5ccty ? Audiogalaxy's peer-to-peer network " > >This is way too much to go through. If I want to post a link, I'll post >the link. The above takes a perfectly good link, easily identifiable, >makes it obscure, and then identifies it again. Back and forth, back >and forth. No thank you, I'll just post the link. > >Tom > >donelias@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > >>The thing I don't like about using tunyurl (or one of the >>similar services) is that there is no way to determine >>what the actual site is. I usually want to know what >>the site is because I might recognize it as one I have >>accessed before and had problems with the site or >>maybe it is one I have already thoroughly browsed. >> >>I can very easily reconstruct broken links - or I may >>not even have to if I recognize them. I reconstruct them >>by copying and pasting into (usually) Notepad. >> >>The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be to provide >>both: the full URL (even if broken) and the shorthand >>version. The description noted, if provided, may or may >>not be meaningful to other users. >> >>Maybe for you folks that have high speed on-all-the-time >>connections can use that to find the actual site from the >>tinyurl notation but I would have to fire up my dial up >>connection to do so. >> >>Don >> >>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:57:57 -0500 The Keyboard Cowboy >><KBCowboy@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> >>>Just a little tip.......... >>>Hey guys.....just for those who don't know it already, for those long >>>links that invariably cause trouble with wraps, etc., you ought to go >>>to: >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/ >>> >>>As an example, lets look at the link: >>> >>>http://www.audiogalaxy.com/satellite/index.php?SID=89eb207ee536f0f730e >>>f195239bf6421 >>> >>>Using TinyURL, it becomes: >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/5ccty >>> >>>The only problem with this is there is no way to recognize what the >>>link is later. To solve this, you can give the link a name - any >>>name >>>you want. To accomplish this, place a space, question mark, and >>>another space between the URL and the description. As an example, a >>>URL would look like -- URL ? NAME-of-URL. Using the TinyURL from >>>this post, it would look like this: >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/5ccty ? Audiogalaxy's peer-to-peer network >>> >>> Regards from >>> >>>Bob -- the "Keyboard Cowboy", >>> >>> > > > > -- <Please delete this line and everything below.> To unsub or change your email settings: //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk To access our Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/ //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/ For more info: //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=pctechtalk