5 ms·
And how many of those people then proceed to type those links into their web browsers, shortened or not? Sure, contributing to link rot is bad, but in the same
by SR2Z 1y ago
And how many of those people then proceed to type those links into their web browsers, shortened or not?
Sure, contributing to link rot is bad, but in the same way that throwing out spoiled food is bad. Sometimes you've just gotta break a bunch of links.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> And how many of those people then proceed to type those links into their web browsers, shortened or not? That probably depends on the link's purpose. "The full dataset and source code to reproduce this research can be downloaded at <url>" might be deeply interesting to someone in a few years.
- epolanski 1y agoSo he has a computer and can click. In any case a paper should not rely on an ephemeral resource like internet links. Have you ever tried to navigate to the errata corrige of computer science books? It's one single book, with one single link, and it's dead anyway.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoI’m unconvinced the researchers acted irresponsibly. If anything, a Google-shortened link looks—at first glance—more reliable than a PDF hosted god knows where. There are always dependencies in citations. Unless a paper comes with its citations embedded, splitting hairs between why one untrustworthy provider is more untrustworthy than another is silly.
- ycombinatrix 1y agoThe Google shortened link just redirects you to the PDF hosted god knows where...