3 ms·

> while URLs may not be going anywhere anytime soon Nothing in the article talks about killing the URL, just flagging spam URLs like G00GLE.com (with zeros) th

> while URLs may not be going anywhere anytime soon Nothing in the article talks about killing the URL, just flagging spam URLs like G00GLE.com (with zeros) that might be security risks.

strikelaserclaw 8y ago
Jesus Christ, how do they get these titles? do the people posting even read the damn article?
- dang 8y ago
  Instead of posting an empty rant, which breaks the site guidelines, it would be helpful if you'd suggest an accurate and neutral title, preferably using language from the article itself. Then we can change it and everyone's eyes can stop hurting.
  - vatueil 8y ago
    The headline appears to be based on the first and last sentences of the intro paragraph. The latter concludes with the description: > Google's first steps toward more robust website identity (Headlines, in case anyone hasn't heard, are usually written by an editor rather than the author of the article.) If the title is to be changed, I suppose that quote from the article's original language may be more accurate and less clickbaity.
    - dang 8y ago
      That's not neutral enough. If we used that title, we'd get equally many complaints about it being biased, plus new complaints that the mods are taking a side.
      - vatueil 8y ago
        Some other less obvious title options pulled from article quotes: > flagging sketchy URLs > changing the way site identity is presented
arkades 8y ago
>"What we’re really talking about is changing the way site identity is presented," Stark told WIRED. "People should know easily what site they’re on, and they shouldn’t be confused into thinking they’re on another site. It shouldn’t take advanced knowledge of how the internet works to figure that out." > And while URLs may not be going anywhere anytime soon, Stark emphasizes that there is more in the works on how to get users to focus on important parts of URLs and to refine how Chrome presents them. I read that as "Google is working on decoupling site identity and navigation from URLs."
- muthdra 8y ago
  Because scammers are exploiting the way we use URLs for the detriment of users. URLs are great as a mnemonic point of entry but you can easily scam someone out of a trusted website into your cloned version of it without them even noticing; it's a very slow and very dumb attack where the shady URL itself is the corrupt man-in-the-middle.
  - arkades 8y ago
    I understand the purported rationale for killing URLs. My comment was clarifying where the google spokesperson made a statement I interpret as “we are going to kill URLs.”

> while URLs may not be going anywhere anytime soon Nothing in the article talks about killing the URL, just flagging spam URLs like G00GLE.com (with zeros) that might be security risks.

strikelaserclaw 8y ago

Jesus Christ, how do they get these titles? do the people posting even read the damn article?

dang 8y ago
Instead of posting an empty rant, which breaks the site guidelines, it would be helpful if you'd suggest an accurate and neutral title, preferably using language from the article itself. Then we can change it and everyone's eyes can stop hurting.
- vatueil 8y ago
  The headline appears to be based on the first and last sentences of the intro paragraph. The latter concludes with the description: > Google's first steps toward more robust website identity (Headlines, in case anyone hasn't heard, are usually written by an editor rather than the author of the article.) If the title is to be changed, I suppose that quote from the article's original language may be more accurate and less clickbaity.
  - dang 8y ago
    That's not neutral enough. If we used that title, we'd get equally many complaints about it being biased, plus new complaints that the mods are taking a side.
    - vatueil 8y ago
      Some other less obvious title options pulled from article quotes: > flagging sketchy URLs > changing the way site identity is presented

arkades 8y ago

>"What we’re really talking about is changing the way site identity is presented," Stark told WIRED. "People should know easily what site they’re on, and they shouldn’t be confused into thinking they’re on another site. It shouldn’t take advanced knowledge of how the internet works to figure that out." > And while URLs may not be going anywhere anytime soon, Stark emphasizes that there is more in the works on how to get users to focus on important parts of URLs and to refine how Chrome presents them. I read that as "Google is working on decoupling site identity and navigation from URLs."

muthdra 8y ago
Because scammers are exploiting the way we use URLs for the detriment of users. URLs are great as a mnemonic point of entry but you can easily scam someone out of a trusted website into your cloned version of it without them even noticing; it's a very slow and very dumb attack where the shady URL itself is the corrupt man-in-the-middle.
- arkades 8y ago
  I understand the purported rationale for killing URLs. My comment was clarifying where the google spokesperson made a statement I interpret as “we are going to kill URLs.”