31–40 of 96 posts
> The only thing that matters there is the 6380. Try it https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380 or https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/fancy-pants also works. SO will even support this! http://stackoverflow.com/u/6380.
This works too: https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/a3n
That doesn't seem right, and on a different site could even be dangerous.
This URL I've memorized and revisit regularly is a bite-sized marvel of semantic clarity: https://www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage/rates
URLs are addresses. For web, we messed up and URLs became part of the UI. It shouldn't be necessary to use URLs in most cases though. e.g. imagine using IMAP URLs to read your email.
Having entries like the following in my calendar app would be amazing:
"Company event on , for details see linked email"
Proposed what? Great article and I completely agree with it, I'm frustrated perhaps daily by bad URLs, (I don't know if I've ever written a more lame description of myself!) but I was very confused by the ending.
I was expecting the author to propose a (informal, but) concrete system for URL UI. I know it's short of implicit throughout, but a summary would be good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make money with it, 301s are going to hurt the wallet for some months.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
I made a little project taking this idea to an extreme. The idea was, that you should be able to generate "meme" image macros simply by typing a URL. That way you could create memes on the fly anywhere that you can enter a URL (Slack/Twitter/Facebook/etc.) without having to leave the app. Just type a URL of the form: http://urlme.me/ / / . http://urlme.me/
http://urlme.me/simply/one_can't_simply/fix_the_web
..but your example might lead the way.
Also, I hope this stays up for a long time to come.
> I love Stack Overflow's URLs. Here's an example: https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/scott-hanselman > The only thing that matters there is the 6380. Try it https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380 or https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/fancy-pants also works. SO will even support this! http://stackoverflow.com/u/6380 . This works too: https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/a3n That doesn't seem right, and on a differe…
This scheme is used on other sites, too.
> I love Stack Overflow's URLs. Here's an example: https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/scott-hanselman > The only thing that matters there is the 6380. Try it https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380 or https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/fancy-pants also works. SO will even support this! http://stackoverflow.com/u/6380 . This works too: https://stackoverflow.com/users/6380/a3n That doesn't seem right, and on a differe…
Sure, you can create a weird looking or even misleading URLs that way but I don't think it's a big problem because 1/ as soon as the page load the URL gets rewritten to the real title and 2/ it's often very easy to obfuscate links regardless of that. Many platforms allow you to hide your links behind an href with some markup for instance, so you can make bogus links very easily. Think of something like:
http://google.com
You can't even trust the browser's link preview tooltip because it can be overridden in JS. So in general it's a bad idea to blindly trust an URL "from the outside", slug or not.
I really, really wish youtube would do the same thing for instance, it's completely impossible to know what a youtube link is pointing towards. You could argue that they want short URLs but since they already have a "youtu.be" shortening service to make them even shorter it feels a bit redundant.