?

Log in

No account? Create an account
A Shout Out to My Pepys [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The American Caliban

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| Dad Pinboard Last.fm Subscribe to me [Friendfeed] Flickr ]

We are all a rickroll now [Mar. 20th, 2008|01:58 pm]
The American Caliban
[Tags|]
[Current Mood |tired]

Blog software that includes the headline in the url ruins things. I don't know why, but if I show someone a link and it has the dumb headline in there, it somehow spoilers the story even when it's not a story one would expect to be spoiled.

Am I crazy, or is the whole-story-in-url just a bad thing? Especially with photos.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: perich
2008-03-20 09:09 pm (UTC)
Story in the URL is good for increasing search visibility. Not sure if that's the explicit intention or just a happy accident, but it's a factor.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: substitute
2008-03-20 09:11 pm (UTC)
True, and "SEO" has now become way more valuable than usability or the actual (cringe at word) content.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: perich
2008-03-20 09:15 pm (UTC)
I say a lot about that in my latest blog post, which you can read here.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: substitute
2008-03-20 09:27 pm (UTC)
hahahaha excellent
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: dreamyshade
2008-03-20 09:27 pm (UTC)
i like headlines in the url, or a summary at least, or some other sort of useful hint at its content. helps me decide whether or not to click when it's a bare url without much context (such as in the cases of lazy deliciousers, irc pasters, bloggers with snarky anchor text, etc).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: substitute
2008-03-20 09:31 pm (UTC)
I get that. I think it's more like sending someone an url that turns out to be blog/totally/hilarious/dog/bites/guy/in/last/3/seconds or /breaking/news/presidentwithoutpants where once you've seen the url there's no point, and the fun of seeing the headline or the pic and going OMG is just punctured.

or you know, rickroll'd
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: dreamyshade
2008-03-20 09:39 pm (UTC)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: troymccluresf
2008-03-20 09:40 pm (UTC)
I concur.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: stoatmaster9000
2008-03-20 10:22 pm (UTC)

Damn you, Jakob Nielsen

It's all Jakob and SEO, now. His emphasis on using 'microcontent' to push the inverted-pyramid style to anything in an html H tag, and to the url itself, is part of the issue, I think. It's great for skimming CNN, good for eliminating the 'mystery meat' quality that a lot of posting can take on, but it's murder on stuff where the punch line or the payoff lies in any kind of surprise...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brianenigma
2008-03-20 10:50 pm (UTC)
I actually prefer the full descriptive URLs. example.com/blog/we-are-all-a-rickroll-now, to me, is more descriptive and informative (and therefore better) than example.com/index.php?p=1737886. I generally know whether or not I want to click it by the title. Even if it's a "spoiler" like example.com/dog-bites-president-without-pants, I don't mind. If it's funny to see someone get bit in the nuts, it should be able to stand on its own; it'll still be funny regardless of the title. If it was supposed to be a surprise, the original content poster should have named it differently.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mendel
2008-03-21 03:35 am (UTC)
Description-of-photo-in-URL has completely ruined sharing icanhascheezburger photos on IRC.

http://www.icanhazcheezburger.com/2008/03/20/funny-picture-a-tiny-tiny-kitten-on-his-back-saying-i-can-haz-luv.jpg

It works fine for informative blog posts, though, and I love this URL shortener.

(And of course all SEO is sympathetic magic.)
(Reply) (Thread)