Fodor's Travel Talk Forums

Fodor's Travel Talk Forums (https://www.fodors.com/community/)
-   Europe (https://www.fodors.com/community/europe/)
-   -   Okay, let me ask it a different way. (https://www.fodors.com/community/europe/okay-let-me-ask-it-a-different-way-612115/)

Robespierre May 1st, 2006 12:27 PM

Okay, let me ask it a different way.
 
Do you <b>favor</b> or <b>oppose</b> Fodor's changing their server program so that when we type a URL, it is automatically converted to a link that hides all of the URL except the server name (<i>e.g.</i>, www.whitehouse.gov) so that

1. The URL doesn't overflow, forcing horizontal scrolling, and

2. We aren't forced to use tinyurl.com and wind up with a link that some people won't click on because the server name is obscured.

No personalities, please. Just yea or nay.

ira May 1st, 2006 12:33 PM

I favor a scheme that allows us to give a name to link, eg, &quot; see XYZ&quot; where &quot;XYZ&quot; would be the link.

((I))

Robespierre May 1st, 2006 12:34 PM

Some posters have registered opposition to &quot;blind&quot; URLs such as tinyurl.com produces, because they have a better chance of avoiding offensive content if the server name is exposed.

Allowing posters to define the link text would defeat the purpose.

laverendrye May 1st, 2006 12:35 PM

Oppose.

I think that Fodor's should use what technical resources they have on improving the deficiencies in their search funtion,

Robespierre May 1st, 2006 12:36 PM

Google.com offers a perfectly serviceable search facility. Enter your search parameters and the site name, thus:

<b>&quot;rue cler&quot; site:fodors.com</b> and be amazed.

Maire May 1st, 2006 12:40 PM

Yea.
(although I like the tinyurl, now that you taught me how to use it..thanks again)

Robespierre May 1st, 2006 12:42 PM

Yeah, but it still takes several steps to use tinyurl. This (being completely automatic) would save you the trouble.

g33kgrl May 1st, 2006 12:47 PM

Oppose. I agree with laverendrye that their resources could be better used for other things--like reconfiguring the site to look &amp; work like a NORMAL forum, like flytertalk.com. I hate this format.

ilovetotravel29 May 1st, 2006 12:47 PM

Not being a techie, I never gave it much thought.

Whatever is easiest to use, I suppose.

However, if one were looking for links and specific linkage and answers, just seeing what appears to be the home page of a huge site may make them think their question hasn't been answered.

esm May 1st, 2006 12:52 PM

Sounds good to me so I &quot;favor&quot;.

I prefer Fodor's format to flyertalk.

Robespierre May 1st, 2006 12:53 PM

g33kgrl - they don't have TIME to make the site work like flyertalk.com, or fix the search function. What I'm proposing would take ten minutes, tops.

ilovetotravel29 - the full URL would be &quot;behind&quot; the link, so clicking the link text would take you to the exact page reference. The link text would be the server name. Let's say I wanted to cite this thread somewhere else. I would paste the entire URL from the title at the top of the column:

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34797822

All that stuff after the .com would be hidden, so the only thing that you would see would be www.fodors.com - but clicking on it would take you directly to this thread.

ggreen May 1st, 2006 01:03 PM

I agree with ira and ilovetotravel. Plus, you can always mouse over a link and see its full URL in the browser status bar. Seeing just the domain name is misleading if the actual URL is for a specific page.

We had a similar issue with URLs in an internal search tool at my last job - when they're too long they force horizontal scrolling, and there's no good coding solution.

The interface solution we came up with was for URLs over X character length, put an ellipses in the middle so the user saw the domain and the end of the relevant page, such as http://www.fodors.com...tid=34797822. The full URL displayed in &quot;popup&quot; text when the link was moused over (not supported by all browsers though), and in the browser status bar. It was a compromise: ugly, but worked well enough...

edhodge May 1st, 2006 01:07 PM

Favor this proposed measure. Would also like to see a &quot;skip to last post I read&quot; function in each thread.

RufusTFirefly May 1st, 2006 01:08 PM

Nay.

Robespierre May 1st, 2006 01:12 PM

But ggreen - being able to see all or part of the fully-qualified document specification doesn't give a surfer any more information than just the server name does.

I could put up a site xxxx.com and have document names like Mona_Lisa.html or HerMajesty.jpg and you'd have NO IDEA what you were going to see. The xxxx.com in and of itself might give you a clue, however.

esm May 1st, 2006 01:13 PM

ggreen, I think some people may not know about seeing the full URL in the status bar.

I have seen (and don't mind) the pop-up style you mention.

ggreen May 1st, 2006 01:15 PM

Yes that's true - I should spread the word, it can be so helpful! :)

FainaAgain May 1st, 2006 01:20 PM

whatever works! if it gets me there...

Robespierre May 1st, 2006 01:21 PM

Rufus, do you have a reason, or are you just being obtuse?

Maire May 1st, 2006 01:34 PM

I also prefer this format. Took me a few minutes to get used to it and realize that it's much better than some other forums I have seen.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:33 PM.