[eDebate] evidence and such

Richard A. Garner richardgarner
Thu May 14 07:53:34 CDT 2009


Agree with brad. It's better to truncate a gargantuan non-database URL
(pointing to the site instead of the actual page) than use a shortened URL,
in my opinion.

RG

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Brad Hall <hallbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090514/f918e69c/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list