Timeline for URL Shorteners cleanup
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2013 at 14:50 | comment | added | Duncan Jones | @AlEverett A flawed policy in my opinion. I've added a bounty to that question in the hope it might be re-examined. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 14:39 | comment | added | Stijn | @gparyani That would probably break a lot of permalink systems. For example, meta.stackexchange.com/a/206813/167646 does a 301 redirect to meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205806/url-shorteners-cleanup/… | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 14:29 | comment | added | ale | Of course we should block them. But current policy says "no". Flagging them doesn't scale, though. | |
| Nov 13, 2013 at 12:33 | vote | accept | TRiG | ||
| Nov 13, 2013 at 16:51 | |||||
| Nov 10, 2013 at 23:37 | comment | added | Brad Larson Mod | Yeah, more than a few of us have wanted to blacklist URL shorteners for a while. Spammers are increasingly using them to hide their target websites and to work around blacklists, and they serve no functional purpose within questions or answers. | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 20:52 | comment | added | user215114 | I suggest that not only should all URL shorteners be blocked, but all URLs that redirect to a different page. For example, what if one uses their own domain to perform a redirect? Proof of concept: gparyani.com/stackoverflow goes to Bing. | |
| Nov 10, 2013 at 18:06 | comment | added | Chris Laplante | I have also seen people use bit.ly to redirect to LMGTFY as well as Google itself. | |
| Nov 9, 2013 at 19:42 | history | answered | Cjxcz Odjcayrwl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |