[eDebate] evidence and such

Brad Hall hallbrad
Thu May 14 06:25:46 CDT 2009


I think the full URL needs to be included - it's often the only way to tell
something is from a blog, a Geocities page, Newsmax, etc. Including both the
full URL and a URL shortener in the cite accrues any advantage for ease of
transcription/"tweeting" but still allows debaters to examine the URL for
source qualification purposes.

Brad

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:

> a different question...
>
> Is it ok to cite some thing like this
>
> GAO 8/18/2006
> ONDCP Media Campaign
> http://bit.ly/eaWOt
>
> as opposed to
> GAO 8/18/2006
> Ondcp Media Campaign
> http://www.gao.gov/htext/d06818.html
>
> the bit.ly link points to exactly the same place, but it is shorter...in
> this instance it is not signifigantly shorter but we have all seen urls that
> are way long
>
> Some advanatges
> 1)shorter url's make transcription errors less likely
> 2)shortening services provide some analytics which can be useful for
> tracking how many people are accesing articles and assesing the impact that
> a service like the wiki has the overall readership of an article and how
> debate affects that
> 3)sometimes you can have fun with them
> http://dickensurl.com/a9d7/We_must_scrunch_or_be_scrunched absolutly
> negating #1
> 4) easy to tweet or fb links to people
>
> Some disadvanatges
> 1)In theory bit.ly or teak.tk could go out of business (but so could
> spaceblog.com)
> 2)there is very little academic practice regarding this
> 3) ap and some other news sites may eventually block shorteners meaning
> what was a good link when you shortened it but doesnt point to the article
> 4) shorteners justify lengtheners....some could post a link from
> freakinghugeurl.com and cite all their cards that way...totally making it
> likely that if they do not provide it in digital form most people will never
> type the link in.
>
>
> Far from an esoteric question, a 17 character url may be largely preferable
> for the operation of the wiki to a full length url, for one it is less data,
> byte for byte thats irrelevant, but over the course of millions of cites
> over a decade it may matter...figure a 17 character url saves 20 characters
> over the typical php based url...as the number of cites grows that is 20
> each time, plus it provides a transcribeable solution to the really long url
> problem...
>
> thoughts?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



-- 
Brad Hall
hallbrad at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090514/fd7362c4/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list