8

Proposal

And, of course, likewise for other Stack Exchange sites. This would be done via an HTTP 301 redirect, as the /u/1473, /q/1473, and /a/1473 URLs are already.

(If one of those directions — a short URL from Main to Meta or vice versa — is deemed a Bad Thing, then just do the other. Perhaps link /m/1473 to Meta post #1473 whether the link is from Main or from Meta.)

Rationale

  • Why a short URL: People frequently want to link in comments on Main to Meta posts and vice versa. This will allow a briefer way to do so. Brevity in comments is important, because
    • there's a strict character limit and
    • the markdown of a comment is more human-readable if its embedded URL is shorter.
    Compare [foo](//judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1473) to [foo](/m/1473).
  • Why this short URL: This is familiar notation: people know the /u/1473 shortcut to user #1473 and the /q/1473 and /a/1473 shortcuts to post #1473 on the same site. So there's little learning curve. And the m alludes to "meta".
Improve this question
12
  • 6
    I think clarity and a lack of surprises in URLs is more important than brevity/convenience here.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 5:13
  • @AnnaLear, the m alludes to "meta". I'll edit the question.
    – msh210
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 6:05
  • Sure, while you're on main. When you're on meta, the m now means something completely different.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 6:18
  • @AnnaLear, yeah, "main". It works. :-) (Actually, I've seen the non-meta sites referred to as "main", but I don't know that's popular across all the per-site metas. If not, then the m will be opaque on some sites.) (As an alternative, this short URL can work only from Main to Meta (or vice versa). I'm editing....)
    – msh210
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 6:21
  • 3
    I'm sorry, I don't think I'm making my point clearly enough. :) The shortcut's meaning changes in a way that's not immediately obvious or discoverable. That's a bad thing.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 6:28
  • @AnnaLear, yeah, I've edited. But note that the meaning stays "link to the associated site" if it links from Main to Meta and from Meta to Main.
    – msh210
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 6:30
  • 3
    I'd hesitantly support this, but only where /m/ means meta. Doesn't make much sense for links to main, those won't ever be shorter with this syntax.
    – Undo
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 7:09
  • @Undo, maybe post an answer so people can upvote that more-specific proposal and downvote mine if they so desire. (But links to main will be shorter with this syntax: (/m/1473) is shorter than (//judaism.stackexchange.com/q/1473).)
    – msh210
    Commented Dec 7, 2014 at 7:32
  • 2
    Note the implications of changing links if a question is migrated from main to meta. This could be surprising to people clicking the link.
    – user213963
    Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 4:35
  • I've upvoted this post because I support the general idea, but I prefer the variation suggested in [Monica Cellio's answer].
    – Isaac Moses
    Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 18:43
  • Thanks for migrating this to MSE! I've wondered many times why don't have such shortcuts.
    – 0scar
    Commented Nov 19, 2019 at 9:20
  • This might confuse people since adding an m can also indicate medium or mobile.
    – Mast
    Commented Nov 19, 2019 at 12:06

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
22

I like having a shorthand for moving between main and meta in comments. As noted in the question, "m/q/613" consumes much less of the limited resources of a comment than the full URL.

However, having the URL be context-sensitive makes me uncomfortable. While yes, relative URLs are always context-sensitive, this feels like overloading that will confuse users. I therefore propose shorthands main/ and meta/. Yes it's 3 more characters, but it's completely unambiguous (and still shorter than the full URL). Further, these could reasonably work from chat, while the proposed context-sensitive m/ couldn't. (I'm not saying we want to explicitly support them in chat, but sometimes people will onebox a comment into chat, so if this change makes it more likely that someone clicking on the link wouldn't get the wrong results, that's a win.)

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    Shortcuts like these would be semantically very clear in any context. For example, that foo.stackexchange.com/meta/1473 and meta.foo.stackexchange.com/meta/1473 both point to meta.foo.stackexchange.com/questions/1473 makes a great deal of sense to me, and it's obvious from reading any of these URLs, in or out of context, what they're intended to point to.
    – Isaac Moses
    Commented Dec 8, 2014 at 15:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .