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

[Tim Harig]

On 2010-09-20, Brian Victor <homeusenet4 at brianhv.org> wrote:
> Tim Harig wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The thing I haven't seen anyone make explicit in this conversation is
> that URL shorteners remove all the information from a URL.  When someone
> posts a URL, I very frequently find one of the following is true:

Actually, its been a central point in this conversation.

> In any of those cases, I don't even have to click the link, much less
> copy and paste and add "preview" to the URL to see if it's something I
> care to read.

I have already stated in my thread with Seebs that all of this can be
done automatically including converting the tinyurl back to a full url
if you choose to do so.  If you really wanted to, you could bring back the
<title></title> and other meta headers that would give you even more
information about the page tinyurl redirects to.

> Given this, I concur that URL shortening makes sense as an addition to a
> full URL if you're concerned about line-breaking, but feels like a
> needless obstacle when presented alone.

Yes, it makes sense for you to do so and I support your right to
do so.  Personally, I would find two urls annoying.  I also support
the grandparent's right to post just the tinyurl.  I don't make use of
it much when posting myself; but, I do understand why some people find
it useful.  Its his post and he can do it how he wants.  You have the
right to do the same for your posts.

> And as a datapoint on the topic of archiving, I search usenet archives
> regularly when faced with a problem.  

Usernet users also have the right to use the X-No-Archive header field.
Does the fact that *you* happen to search usenet archives make using this
field immoral?  Shouldn't the poster have to right to determine for
themselves whether they care about the long term persistance of their posts
and be able to balance that against other factors?