I've reviewed a lot of edits where people without edit privileges go around changing a question or answer to hide raw URLs, and there are some people who go on binges making such edits. For example (completely artificial):
You can find the Frobbits at, for example, http://frobbit.example.com/, and the download is easy.
This might be edited to:
You can find the Frobbits at, for example, link, and the download is easy.
Personally, I like seeing the URL text in the message unless the URL is long or non-mnemonic. I find the hiding of the URL unhelpful; I now have to hover my cursor over the link to find where it goes, instead of simply being able to read where the link is. (I certainly don't just click on the link without knowing where it is - or appears to be - going.) Top-level domains as in this example, or just a couple of levels down with semi-mnemonic naming (names that you might be expected to remember and retype) are helpful. Obviously, it is much less helpful if the text after the domain is all non-mnemonic gibberish:
You can find the Frobbits at, for example, http://www.example.com/aa9921/BZQ/xqjd?r=239a395123b91dfe?d=2011-05-31?t=09:00:00, and the download is easy.
That is not something I'd want to type again, and hiding that behind a well crafted link text is beneficial.
Quite a lot of the time, I reject edits like this, especially when the text of version with the hidden URL is clumsy like in the first example. It feels to me like it is subverting the intent of the author. If the author wanted the URL hidden, the text would probably read:
You can use Frobbits to do this job, and the download is easy.
So, being the curmudgeon that I am, I plan to continue rejecting poor quality, URL-hiding edits unless there are other more compelling changes made at the same time. Is this unreasonable?