3 ms·
I don't actually take sides on the question of if the URL should be formatted as it is. It's almost too ingrained in my mind at this point to seriously conside
by zackbloom 10y ago
I don't actually take sides on the question of if the URL should be formatted as it is. It's almost too ingrained in my mind at this point to seriously consider other forms.
I would say my biggest criticism of it is it's rather intolerant of human error. A single mistyped character, and you are not going to the website you intend. I think that's the reason searching for something on Google can actually be a better experience than trying to figure out the URL directly.
To your advertisement point, there was a long history of companies including the http:// http:// and www in their ads. There's always this of course too: http://i.imgur.com/cfTxpd2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/cfTxpd2.jpg
- prplhaz4 10y agoI believe the problem with getting to specific content still exists with the search engine approach (and, as you say, may be partially resolved by typing in the exact title of the content you're looking for). I think search engines are also powerful in that they can provide context - google knows that when I search for C#, I am not looking for anything musical...but that inference is at odds with being able to pinpoint a specific content item out of a more or less infinite pile. We were all forced to learn the technical constructs of mailing addresses and phone numbers, and URLs provide a similar service to a much larger problem set (so it's not surprising to me that they must be more complex). I'm sure someone smarter than me will find a solution sooner or later...
- JoshTriplett 10y agoThat link seems to lead to a 1x1 jpeg.
- zackbloom 10y agoAh thanks, fixed!