Aircraft Winch

"Montblack" wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...rd=1,1&item=45
48358271&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT

This long link happens to work for me tonight - most do not.

If you format a link in brackets it tends to survive a couple of
quoting levels. It's not a guarantee but then you always have the
original post.

Please consider using:

www.tinyURL.com or www.makeashorterlink.com

The biggest problem I have with those services is that they don't
archive well. Usenet is very well archived, you can still find posts
from over ten years ago; including references to websites. Try that with
a "tinyurl". How long do they keep those "tiny" references?

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

Jens Krueger wrote:

"Montblack" wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...rd=1,1&item=45
48358271&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT

This long link happens to work for me tonight - most do not.


If you format a link in brackets it tends to survive a couple of
quoting levels. It's not a guarantee but then you always have the
original post.


Please consider using:

www.tinyURL.com or www.makeashorterlink.com


The biggest problem I have with those services is that they don't
archive well. Usenet is very well archived, you can still find posts
from over ten years ago; including references to websites. Try that with
a "tinyurl". How long do they keep those "tiny" references?

So give both the long and the tiny url. Tinyurl automatically puts its
result into your clipboard so it's easy to do.

xyzzy wrote:

The biggest problem I have with those services is that they don't
archive well. Usenet is very well archived, you can still find posts
from over ten years ago; including references to websites. Try that with
a "tinyurl". How long do they keep those "tiny" references?

So give both the long and the tiny url. Tinyurl automatically puts its
result into your clipboard so it's easy to do.

So what's the point of having tinyurl then? Because a broken newsreader
cant handle ""-formatted urls forces everybody else to quote a url now
twice? If your newsreader doesn't open a web browser with Google after
clicking on this http://www.google.com, then you need another
newsreader, not tinyurl or whatever... ;-)

Cheers,
Jens


--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

"Jens Krueger" wrote in message
...
If your newsreader doesn't open a web browser with Google after
clicking on this http://www.google.com, then you need another
newsreader, not tinyurl or whatever... ;-)

Either that or learn how to cut-n-paste...

"Jens Krueger" wrote in message
...
If you format a link in brackets it tends to survive a couple of
quoting levels.

Even a broken URL isn't hard to reconstruct. Regardless...

[...]
The biggest problem I have with those services is that they don't
archive well.

Define "archive well".

Usenet is very well archived, you can still find posts
from over ten years ago; including references to websites. Try that with
a "tinyurl". How long do they keep those "tiny" references?

As far as I know, forever. makeashorterlink.com specifically says in their
FAQ that, as long as they are around, their links will work. tinyurl.com
doesn't have an FAQ, or any real documentation beyond "here's how to use our
service" as near as I can tell. But I would be surprised if it's different.

What makes you believe that the shortened URLs age at all, never mind in an
unreasonably short period of time. I think it's more likely that the
original URL itself will go out of date before the shorter reference URL
does. The web is filled with dead links.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
The web is filled with dead links.

I guess the term for that is "HTTP roadkill"...

Peter Duniho wrote:

The biggest problem I have with those services is that they don't
archive well.

Define "archive well".

As long as source (news post) and target (webpage) exist.

Usenet is very well archived, you can still find posts
from over ten years ago; including references to websites. Try that with
a "tinyurl". How long do they keep those "tiny" references?

As far as I know, forever.

Well...

makeashorterlink.com specifically says in their
FAQ that, as long as they are around, their links will work.

....that could be significantly shorter than "forever". ;-)

Anyways, my point was that introducing link-hosts should not be the cure
for broken newsreader, like the response to the OP suggested.

Cheers,
Jens

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.

"Jens Krueger" wrote in message
...
[...]
makeashorterlink.com specifically says in their
FAQ that, as long as they are around, their links will work.

...that could be significantly shorter than "forever". ;-)

It could well match the lifetime of the Internet, for all we know. My point
is that there's no reason to believe that the shortcut web sites will have a
shorter lifetime than the Usenet archives or other related resources.

Anyways, my point was that introducing link-hosts should not be the cure
for broken newsreader, like the response to the OP suggested.

Perhaps not. But even the person saying that we shouldn't work around
broken newsreaders (you) apparently has a broken newsreader (your
formatted URL come through with a line break).

makeashortlink.com shows you the target URL before redirecting you. It
doesn't make links as short as tinyurl.com, but they are short enough and
IMHO do address the line-break issue, and make the post more readable anyway
(to a human being, often the only part of the URL really useful is the
domain...one could just put that seperately -- "From foo.com:" -- and use
the shorter link service).

I just don't see what you have against the services. Your original
complaint was that the redirects go out of date, but they don't. Now your
complaint seems to be that we ought to all just be using newsreaders that
aren't "broken", but your own newsreader appears to be as well.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

makeashorterlink.com specifically says in their
FAQ that, as long as they are around, their links will work.

...that could be significantly shorter than "forever". ;-)

It could well match the lifetime of the Internet, for all we know.

Yes, "could". Not "will". ;-)

So, enlighten me: Which one is going to be still around in 2035:
makeashorterlink.com, tinyurl.com, shorl.com, notlong.com, babyurl.com,
biglnk.com, bittyurl.com, briefurl.com etc. etc. If you predict correct,
I'll buy you a beer. In thirty years. :-)

I just don't see what you have against the services. Your original
complaint was that the redirects go out of date, but they don't.

No, like you just said above, they could; most probably 80% of them will
be defunct in a couple of years. Here's an article further detailing the
problems with redirects:
http://www.businessknowhow.com/internet/miniurl.htm

Cheers,
Jens

Since this now higly OT, EOT for me. Feel free to email me at my first
name at jjk.cc

--
I don't accept any emails right now. Usenet replys only.