Down with tinyurl! (was Re: importing excel data into a python matrix?)

[Tim Harig]

On 2010-09-20, Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 05:46:38 +0000, Tim Harig wrote:
>
>>> I'm not particularly convinced that these are *significant* complaints
>>> about URL-shorteners.  But I will say, of the last couple hundred links
>>> I've followed from Usenet posts, precisely zero of them were through
>>> URL redirectors.  If I can't at least look at the URL to get some
>>> initial impression of what it's a link to, I'm not going to the trouble
>>> of swapping to a web browser to find out.
>> 
>> But why should the rest of us be penalized because you make the choice
>> not to use (or not take full advantage of) all of the tools that are
>> available to you?
>
> I'm with Aahz... best practice is to post both the full and shortened 
> URL, unless the URL is less that 78 characters, in which case just post 
> the full version.

Posting two URLs rather defeats the purpose of using a URL shortening
service in the first place; but, if that is what you feel is effective,
then by all means, do so.  You are the master of your posts and you have
the right to post them using whatever methods and formating that you
feel is most effect; but, other people should have the same priviledge.

Many people find tinyurl and kin to be useful tools.  If you do not,
then are free to rewrite them in your reader, ignore posts using these
services, or even add a rule blocking them to your score/kill file so
that you do not have to view their ugliness.