1 3 4 5  7 8 9 12
You may use / to shorten long URLs to about less than 26 characters.

Know. Don't think it a good idea, for several reasons,

Be articulate. No one can use your ridiculously overlong reference without painstaking care, which simply isn't worth the effort.
There's always the older form "rede" (although I think that meant "speak").

The online Oxford English Dictionary says, in part, under "read, v(erb)"
The typical ME. forms are redde or radde in the pa. tense, and (i)red or (i)rad in the pa.
pple.; in the later language (from the 17th c.) all tenses of the verb have the same spelling, read , though in pronunication (sic) the vowel of the
preterite forms differs from that of the present
and infinitive.
I think the "later language" took a giant step in the wrong direction.
(The online OED has no entry for "pronunication". How would one pronunicate? Speak in favor of nuns, maybe?)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Know. Don't think it a good idea, for several reasons,

Be articulate. No one can use your ridiculously overlong reference without painstaking care, which simply isn't worth the effort.

Not true for me. The way Jan originally posted the link, it works just fine. Now, once it's quoted and requoted, those symbols interfere.

I was kinda glad Jan didn't go into a long explanation of why he chose this way, but I figure he's entitled to his preference.

Hoping for the best Donna Richoux
re: long URLs vs tinyurl.com
I was kinda glad Jan didn't go into a long explanation of why he chose this way, but I figure he's entitled to his preference.

The usual reason for avoiding tinyurl is for security: you can't tell where you're being pointed, and some people don't like clicking on "blind" links.

Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van)
On 18 Jul 2004, Donna Richoux wrote re: long URLs vs tinyurl.com

I was kinda glad Jan didn't go into a long explanation of why he chose this way, but I figure he's entitled to his preference.

The usual reason for avoiding tinyurl is for security: you can't tell where you're being pointed, and some people don't like clicking on "blind" links.

Well, that's a reason for not clicking on tinyurls and masls. Now, what's a good reason for not converting long URLs in the first place and displaying the shorter version alongside the longer so folks can choose?
John Dean
Oxford
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Be articulate. No one can use your ridiculously overlong reference without painstaking care, which simply isn't worth the effort.

Not true for me. The way Jan originally posted the link, it works just fine.

Actually, Donna, the link got wrapped up in Jan's original post. When I copied the link into by browser, I had to use the key twice at every wrap-point to get the correct URL.

Ayaz Ahmed Khan
On 18 Jul 2004, Donna Richoux wrote re: long URLs ... pointed, and some people don't like clicking on "blind" links.

Well, that's a reason for not clicking on tinyurls and masls. Now, what's a good reason for not converting long URLs in the first place and displaying the shorter version alongside the longer so folks can choose?

Agreed; that's by far the best practice.

Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to harvey.van)
Not true for me. The way Jan originally posted the link, it works just fine.

It may have worked for you, but it didn't for me. It spanned several lines with hard line breaks, which will make it unacceptable to many newsreaders - though it was enclosed in angle brackets which (I think) makes it legal.
http://tinyurl.com/4w9sn does the trick. 24 characters instead of
305.
Now, once it's quoted and requoted, those symbols interfere.

Yes, that will certainly happen.
I was kinda glad Jan didn't go into a long explanation of why he chose this way, but I figure he's entitled to his preference.

TinyURL isn't perfect, but it is the best I've seen of the various tools for shortening URLs.
Jan is, of course, entitled to his preferences but in general I'd say that if a link is worth posting it's worth posting in a way that will be immediately accessible to more than about 1 in 10 readers.
Such as:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/index/ships/male/male4.html (which links to the same page).
Cheers,
Daniel.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
You may use / to shorten long URLs to about less than 26 characters.

I agree, but I think that should be "... fewer than about 26 characters."

Hmm. A tiny URL is less long than 26 characters because there are fewer than 26 characters ... that's a fairly close call.

OTOH I'd have written "You can use ..." rather than "You may use .." because the "may" form seems to be granting permission rather than stating a possibility.
I didn't notice the word ordering "to about less than 26" on first reading ... I think "to less than about 26" sounds nore natural, and even that's rather unclear (is it less than 26 or isn't it? Well, yes, actually it's usually 24 for new links, and less (long) for older ones that were allocated their tiny URLs some time ago).

It looks like Ayaz changed his mind about what he was typing part-way through and muffed the edit. We all do that.

Cheers,
Daniel.
Show more