Comment Feed for C9 Team Updates (Coffeehouse on Channel 9)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

Tommy Carlier — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:02:52 GMT

You are correct. The URL-shortening service provided by content sites themselves (Channel 9, OSNews, …) don't have the same issues that general URL-shorteners have. If I see a URL like ch9.ms/glimmer or osne.ws/gow, I know there won't be any NSFW-content behind it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

Duncan Mackenzie — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:49:14 GMT

I don't really expect anyone to type these in by hand, for the few URLs that fit that need (those that are run for a specific campaign for example) we use a slightly different syntax that there is at least some hope of remembering: http://ch9.ms/glimmer for example.

As to the other points, yes URL Shortening is bad and evil, but no so bad or evil if you control your own. That removes the 'what if it goes away' issue (it is under our control, so the risk is the same as for any of our C9 URLs) and makes it slightly more clear where you are going (at least you know you are going to one of our sites).

Re: Re: Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

Dorian Muthig — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:24:24 GMT

They were once invented for extremely long URLs or those with weird characters in them to not break when posted in forums, or to save plaintext space in forum signatures, if I recall correctly. Twitter came after that.

Re: Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

ManipUni — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:01:35 GMT

I hate URL shortening services just as much as you. I just assumed that the only reason someone might take the time to create one was to give to someone who isn't online, since it is easier to type in / remember. O Vs. 0 is just a common pain in the neck when typing stuff into the internet anyway and very easy to fix in a lot of cases.

They could have the URL return a HTTP 301 code as it redirects to the main Channel 9 website. That way allowing things like Google to continue to work even after the shortened URL service goes offline.

Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

Tommy Carlier — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:27:27 GMT

I think the purpose of the URL-shortener is just for sharing via Twitter. Twitter is also about the only site where I tolerate artificially shortened URLs. I think they suck, big time. I actually think they might even be damaging the web. First of all, they don't mean anything. From looking at one, you can't see what it's pointing at. Might even be dangerous. Another thing: what if one of the URL shortening services shuts down, or loses its data? Do we really want to make our hyperlinks dependent on anything more than DNS?

Re: Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

ManipUni — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:13:42 GMT

Good point. Well replace # with any other special character.

Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

Tommy Carlier — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:59:03 GMT

Except you can't use # in a URL: it would never reach the server.

Re: C9 Team Updates

ManipUni — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:19:51 GMT

You could replace either 0 or O in the base 36 encoding with a special character, like # for example. That way it is easier to reproduce by hand (which I assume is the purpose?).

if(s[n] == 'O' || s[n] == '0') { s[n] = '0'; }
if(s[n] == '#') { s[n] = 'O'; }

Re: Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

Sven Groot — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:56:01 GMT

It still has inexplicable periods of extreme slowness, though much shorter and less frequent than before.

Re: Re: C9 Team Updates

Christian Liensberger — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:42:44 GMT

I just love how fast the website has become :)

Re: C9 Team Updates

Jeff Sandquist — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:37:59 GMT

Thanks! We're definitely trying to improve the level of communication and the performance and reliability of the site. As mentioned before we're planning the next major update for Channel 9 and hope to share more about that soon.