• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Banning URL shorteners

Status
Not open for further replies.
bamacre

bamacre

Lifer
This will kill a lot of members' sig's. There's simply not enough characters allowed to add a link to a page without using URL shorteners like tinyurl. Bad idea.
 
I'm skeptical.

I'd be willing to bet that there are more issues and complaints with popups and dynamite data slow downs than people sig links.

URL shorteners are a great way to get around irritating dynamite data. I've noticed a few more people use them in the FS/FT threads recently. Click a link to newegg - boom you're there - imagine that.
 
Motorheader said:
I'm skeptical.

I'd be willing to bet that there are more issues and complaints with popups and dynamite data slow downs than people sig links.

URL shorteners are a great way to get around irritating dynamite data. I've noticed a few more people use them in the FS/FT threads recently. Click a link to newegg - boom you're there - imagine that.
Click to expand...

I imagine that is one of the reasons why they are banning them....
 
bamacre said:
This will kill a lot of members' sig's. There's simply not enough characters allowed to add a link to a page without using URL shorteners like tinyurl. Bad idea.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it I don't use any urls or url shorteners and never will. They cause more harm then good
 
Crusty said:
Motorheader said:
I'm skeptical.

I'd be willing to bet that there are more issues and complaints with popups and dynamite data slow downs than people sig links.

URL shorteners are a great way to get around irritating dynamite data. I've noticed a few more people use them in the FS/FT threads recently. Click a link to newegg - boom you're there - imagine that.
Click to expand...

I imagine that is one of the reasons why they are banning them....
Click to expand...

It is the fact that spammers can hide the intended target from being revealed until the link has been activated.

The moderators ARE NOT going to give any advantage to the spammers who try to use this site.
 
URL shorteners are a great way to get around irritating dynamite data.

That wasn't even mentioned, let alone considered as a reason for eliminating them.


There's simply not enough characters allowed to add a link to a page without using URL shorteners like tinyurl.

That's not so. Used to be in FuseTalk, but not now. Check my sig.
 
allisolm said:
That's not so. Used to be in FuseTalk, but not now. Check my sig.
Click to expand...

"Your signature cannot be longer than 1000 characters including BB code markup."

I just copied the link used in your signature, attempted to use it five times with the same wording, and there's my error message. Four works though.
 
ndLMN.png


Hello, all.

I have no place saying anything (this being my first login at anandtech in over 5 years, with a total of 9 posts), but I suggest that you censor URL shorterners only in future posts, not in existing posts. If you turn past instances of shortened URL's into asterisks, you'll lose a lot of valuable linkage that has been posted over the years. Some people use them just because they look neat and most likely did not have malicious intent. Plus, if they were malicious links, I imagine that they've already been noted (?), plus I doubt malicious links even stay active for a very long time.

It's important to consider the longevity of the archived content of this forum.

Alex

Perknose said:
Sometime in the next week or so we will begin to censor url shorteners, one by one, as we find them on the forums.

...

Just be aware that whatever url shorteners you may have employed in your sigs or posts stand a great chance of eventually being rendered into asterisks through the awesome alchemical power of we moderating masters of the universe.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Crusty said:
I imagine that is one of the reasons why they are banning them....
Click to expand...

Not so, not even a little bit. It never came up. Never.

pcslookout said:
I have no problem with it I don't use any urls or url shorteners and never will. They cause more harm then good
Click to expand...

This is exactly why we reached the decision we did, which we did not take lightly. On balance, the possible harm far outweighs any inconveniences.

bamacre said:
Someone must have upped the amount of allowed characters in sig's. That works, thanks.
Click to expand...

No one did. Nevertheless, you're welcome! 🙂

alheim said:
...I suggest that you censor URL shorterners only in future posts, not in existing posts. [...] It's important to consider the longevity of the archived content of this forum.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, our censorship tool has no date or time delimiters.

However, please keep in mind the following:

Anyone who has posted a such a link in a still editable post that they wish preserved is advised to go edit it now, as a precaution.

The bulk of archived posts pre-date the existence of url shorteners.

Any link that can't be edited can be reposted by the OP.

Many links that can't be edited and of which the OP is unaware or no longer interested could be sussed out and reposted through the collective wisdom and knowledge of our posters and Google.

Those vanishingly few remaining links, if any, that can no longer be accessed or reconstituted will indeed be lost.
 
Yes. 😛

FYI, if someone runs up against the 1K character limit with forum thread links, note that instead of doing this kind of link:

[url=http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2125506]link[/url]

You can do this kind of [thread=2125506]link[/thread]:

[thread=2125506]link[/thread]

And that saves a lot of characters, not to mention providing a nice mouseover text description. 🙂
 
Many url shorteners offer an extension to the link to take the user to a preview page.

If you are going to censor, why not just amend the links to go to the preview page? A simple function could do the replace with little or no overhead.

I'd at least do this for archived links. There is a LOT of information on anandtech and much could be killed if they are outright filtered.

like
http://tinyurl.com/cz23u4

eq

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cz23u4

or

http://bit.ly/34GFTY

eq

http://bit.ly/34GFTY+

A lot of people use URL shorteners. I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top