The story of computing
| From: Thomas Milne <thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com> | http://gu.com/p/45ba6 I recommend NOT shortening URLs in a mailing list. Some of us like to know where we're going before we follow a link. This isn't twitter.
On Jan 30, 2015 5:28 PM, "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com> wrote:
| From: Thomas Milne <thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com>
I recommend NOT shortening URLs in a mailing list. Some of us like to know where we're going before we follow a link.
This isn't twitter.
That is the URL for the Guardian. I didn't shorten anything.
| From: Thomas Milne <thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com> | http://gu.com/p/45ba6 I recommend NOT shortening URLs in a mailing list. Some of us like to know where we're going before we follow a link. +1 It's such an dangerous thing to do if you think at it from security perspective. I usually just don't bother clicking on it William --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 30 January 2015 at 22:10, William Muriithi <william.muriithi@gmail.com> wrote:
| From: Thomas Milne <thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com>
I recommend NOT shortening URLs in a mailing list. Some of us like to know where we're going before we follow a link.
+1
It's such an dangerous thing to do if you think at it from security perspective. I usually just don't bother clicking on it
When clicked on, the URL expands to http://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2015/jan/30/computing-universe-scie... . Which is probably the URL you were looking at in your browser. Rather than copying the URL they provide (I assume the provided the gu.com URL with a sign saying "copy this!"), use what's in the location bar of your browser, as I'm inclined to agree with William and Hugh: I like to know where I'm going. I default to all JavaScript and cross-site scripting turned off - and I _still_ want to know my target address. :-) -- Giles http://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com
On Jan 30, 2015 10:16 PM, "Giles Orr" <gilesorr@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30 January 2015 at 22:10, William Muriithi <william.muriithi@gmail.com> wrote:
| From: Thomas Milne <thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com>
I recommend NOT shortening URLs in a mailing list. Some of us like to know where we're going before we follow a link.
+1
It's such an dangerous thing to do if you think at it from security
perspective. I usually just don't bother clicking on it
When clicked on, the URL expands to
http://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2015/jan/30/computing-universe-scie...
. Which is probably the URL you were looking at in your browser. Rather than copying the URL they provide (I assume the provided the gu.com URL with a sign saying "copy this!"), use what's in the
Nope. I was not even using a web browser. This is the problem. You are all making assumptions that are invalid. Read it or don't, I couldn't care less about people's paranoid fears.
location bar of your browser, as I'm inclined to agree with William and Hugh: I like to know where I'm going. I default to all JavaScript and cross-site scripting turned off - and I _still_ want to know my target address. :-)
-- Giles http://www.gilesorr.com/ gilesorr@gmail.com --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 2015-01-31 10:38 AM, Thomas Milne wrote:
It's such an dangerous thing to do if you think at it from security perspective. I usually just don't bother clicking on it <snip> Nope. I was not even using a web browser. This is the problem. You are all making assumptions that are invalid. Read it or don't, I couldn't care less about people's paranoid fears.
That's just inconsiderate. It only takes an extra second or two to copy a link - no one's time is that important that they can't be bothered to copy/paste a full URL. I saw your post and just deleted it based on the link. Providing a little context would go a long way toward helping engage your audience, which I assume was your intent given the time spent even posting to the list. To understand why shortened links without context are an issue, take a look at this Google generated short URL to CSIS's site: http://goo.gl/GO9PkW If I were malicious and posted a link to a less *cough* reputable site, then I could potentially do all sorts of nasty things to anyone who opened it. Cheers, Jamon
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Jamon Camisso <jamon.camisso@utoronto.ca> wrote:
On 2015-01-31 10:38 AM, Thomas Milne wrote:
It's such an dangerous thing to do if you think at it from security perspective. I usually just don't bother clicking on it <snip> Nope. I was not even using a web browser. This is the problem. You are all making assumptions that are invalid. Read it or don't, I couldn't care less about people's paranoid fears.
That's just inconsiderate. It only takes an extra second or two to copy a link - no one's time is that important that they can't be bothered to copy/paste a full URL.
This is what I am very patiently trying to explain. THERE NEVER WAS A FULL URL ANYWHERE. I WAS NOT USING A WEB BROWSER. Am I speaking Russian or are you people just thick?
I saw your post and just deleted it based on the link. Providing a little context would go a long way toward helping engage your audience, which I assume was your intent given the time spent even posting to the list.
To understand why shortened links without context are an issue, take a look at this Google generated short URL to CSIS's site: http://goo.gl/GO9PkW
If we never visited a link unless we knew what was there in advance, most of the Internet would be cut off from us.
If I were malicious and posted a link to a less *cough* reputable site, then I could potentially do all sorts of nasty things to anyone who opened it.
Yes we should always behave as if the worst possible thing is about to happen to us. -- Thomas Milne
On 2015-01-31 12:17 PM, Thomas Milne wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Jamon Camisso
That's just inconsiderate. It only takes an extra second or two to copy a link - no one's time is that important that they can't be bothered to copy/paste a full URL.
This is what I am very patiently trying to explain.
THERE NEVER WAS A FULL URL ANYWHERE. I WAS NOT USING A WEB BROWSER.
Then take the time to generate one, or provide some context. Easy. "Hey all, here's a link to a podcast by The Guardian discussing a book called The Story of Computing." See what I did there? I didn't have to resort to calling people names either.
To understand why shortened links without context are an issue, take a look at this Google generated short URL to CSIS's site: http://goo.gl/GO9PkW
If we never visited a link unless we knew what was there in advance, most of the Internet would be cut off from us.
Context. Search engines provide, amongst other things context. People sharing links with friends and mailing lists and aggregation sites, provide, amongst other things, context. Relevant commentary is next level and can encourage people to engage in discussion too. What did you find interesting about the podcast? Was it relevant to Linux users, and if so why? Yes I'm being patronizing, but you thought it was worth posting. I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts about it and might be encouraged to listen if you care to share them.
If I were malicious and posted a link to a less *cough* reputable site, then I could potentially do all sorts of nasty things to anyone who opened it.
Yes we should always behave as if the worst possible thing is about to happen to us.
That's great advice when it comes to browsing the internet.. glad we agree on that one! Cheers, Jamon
| From: D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh@mimosa.com> | | From: Thomas Milne <thomas.bruce.milne@gmail.com> | | | http://gu.com/p/45ba6 | | I recommend NOT shortening URLs in a mailing list. Some of us like | to know where we're going before we follow a link. I want to appologize to Thomas for this. It turns out that gu.com is The (formerly Manchester) Guardian's site. It just looked like a shortened URL. Of course that's a problem in itself, but it's the Guardian's fault. If you go to gu.com, you get to http://www.theguardian.com/uk If you go to http://www.theguardian.com/uk/p/45ba6, you get a 404. What a mess. (If you go to www.theguardian.co.uk, you get to http://www.theguardian.com/uk; I would have expected the reverse.) Perhaps similarly, tgam.ca is a shortening service provided for and by http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ (I always thought that the Guardian was the top UK "quality" newspaper. Its website's front page seems pretty fluffy.)
On Sat, 31 Jan 2015, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: ...
It turns out that gu.com is The (formerly Manchester) Guardian's site.
formerly = more than 50 years ago -- Chris F.A. Johnson, <http://cfajohnson.com>
On 2015-01-31 02:07 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
(I always thought that the Guardian was the top UK "quality" newspaper. Its website's front page seems pretty fluffy.)
All newspaper websites have to compete for clicks, especially when faced with the brutal onslaught that is the Daily Mail. The Guardian is run by an independent foundation, and is able to carry stories (like the whole Wikileaks/Snowden thing) that others won't touch. It's also (formerly) famous for its lack of proof-reading, hence its nickname, The Grauniad. The Globe and Mail used to share more stories with the Guardian, but ever since the Globe lurched more to the right, these have tapered off to nothing. Stewart
participants (7)
-
Chris F.A. Johnson -
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
Giles Orr -
Jamon Camisso -
Stewart C. Russell -
Thomas Milne -
William Muriithi