-8

It's happened many times that I have to shorten a URL (using bit.ly, etc) or my comment so that it fits the 600 character limit for comments. This is especially annoying when I have a 2-sentence comment with a really large link, causing my comment to be too long.

Does this justify not counting URLs when calculating a comment's character limit and dis/allowing it to be posted?

Improve this question
15
  • 2
    What's wrong with adding two comments?
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 3:48
  • It's not that hard, except you have to wait 15 seconds.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 3:48
  • 2
    @AaronBertrand: clutter
    – inspectorG4dget
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 3:48
  • 9
    I would say a 600-character comment is clutter whether it is technically in one comment or two. If you have that much to say, perhaps it shouldn't be a comment. Especially since comments are not the elements the site owners have any interest in promoting.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 3:49
  • 6
    maybe.then.everyone.will.start.writing.their.comments.like.this…
    – Jeff
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 3:58
  • Fair point. But then could we rep-limit it - "You need at least X rep in order to post comments with URLs not counting toward the character count" ?
    – inspectorG4dget
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 4:08
  • 1
    That seems unnecessarily complex - now the database column has to account for URLs and reputation? How many 600+ character comments are you really trying to post? They're not supposed to represent a masters' thesis. I think you are missing the point of comments...
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 4:09
  • PS can you show some examples where you've had to do this "many times"? Is it on a site other than SO? I looked through your last 200 comments and didn't see a single shortened link.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 4:16
  • @AaronBertrand: I get your point. I can't come up with an example off the top of my head. This post was a lingering thought from a while back, so I can't think of an example off the top of my head
    – inspectorG4dget
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 4:37
  • I just realized that it's important to mention that I'm talking about using URLs in markdown like so: [anchor text](URL), and not just pasting them in the comment
    – inspectorG4dget
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 4:50
  • @Jeff It's cut off after a few characters, though.
    – SeinopSys
    Commented Feb 2, 2015 at 13:18
  • @Jeff That's a moot point. You could very well restrict the length of the link's text while leaving the underlying link address unrestricted in length. e.g., like this. "this" is four characters, subject to length restrictions. The underlying address might be arbitrarily long.
    – Alexander Guyer
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 19:27
  • The point that a URL shortener's "exact intended niche" is to subvert content length restrictions is silly. That is not the only purpose of URL shorteners. Currently, if you Google "What is the point of URL shorteners", that doesn't even come up as a use case in many of the top responses. Yes, people use them for that purpose, but that's not their "intended niche". Moreover, there is no such thing as a truly "non-expiring" URL shortener. I'd like my comments to remain valid as long as the contained links are valid. But if bitly goes out of business, their links will all disappear.
    – Alexander Guyer
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 19:36
  • @AaronBertrand OP isn't asking to prove that P = NP. They're asking for SE to treat link addresses in comments differently from regular text. This is not some impossible task. SE has implemented solutions to much more complicated problems. Moreover, many other platforms with character quotas (like Twitter) do treat link addresses differently w.r.t. the character count. Sure, comments are not the focus of the SE brand, but that doesn't make this feature request any less useful.
    – Alexander Guyer
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 19:42
  • @AlexanderGuyer Thanks for the detailed analysis of my 11 year old joke
    – Jeff
    Commented May 31, 2023 at 20:40

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
13

I really doubt that they can easily implement something where only URLs are forgiven when counting toward the 600-character limit. Think about it: comments are stored in a database column. Should they bump up the size just to account for a few long comments with URLs, while still limiting everyone who doesn't use URLs to 600 characters?

I'm not sure what the problem is with using a URL shortener, except that it's not convenient for you. (Comments are meant to be transient, so they shouldn't be expected to outlive any of the URL shortening services anyway, if that's your concern.)

And I'm certain you can find other ways to reduce "clutter" in a 600-character comment, if you're really that opposed to using two comments. You can either be more succinct, or post an answer instead of a comment.

Improve this answer
10
  • 1
    I just realized that it's important to mention that I'm talking about using URLs in markdown like so: [anchor text](URL), and not just pasting them in the comment
    – inspectorG4dget
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 4:51
  • 1
    @Aaron: link shorteners are almost universally blocked at two of my places of employment (for good reason too, they don't serve a constructive purpose for non-mobile devices).
    – user7116
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 15:34
  • @sixlettervariables your workplace actively blocks every link shortener on earth? Sorry but that seems short-sighted (no pun intended). Do they also block twitter, facebook and all other social media? Twitter is a place where URL shorteners are quite useful regardless of what type of device or computer you are using. 140 characters is still 140 characters.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Nov 25, 2012 at 15:44
  • @AaronBertrand: twitter? Yes-ish (search is blocked). Facebook? Yes. Social Media? Yes. Link shorteners? Yes. Image hosting sites? Most (I got the SE imgur CDN whitelisted). Welcome to corporate and medical America.
    – user7116
    Commented Nov 26, 2012 at 0:49
  • @AaronBertrand - I know too little of big data to understand the point (I guess, you might correctly make) about the cost and troubles coupled with expanding of the database columns. --- On the other hand, I think, from the viewpoint of the non-changing final readability and compactness of design and thus (at least in that sense) the unjust punishment of the end-user (who just happens to link to a long URL), ought to be avoided. --- My comment is also meant especially for [anchor text](URL)'s, as is inspectorG4dget's comment above.
    – O0123
    Commented Feb 1, 2015 at 20:29
  • 1
    As for the URL shorteners, I just have the (maybe ungrounded) fear that they will expire at some time + if a given URL changes over time, the heuristic work to find back data (e.g. using data from Wayback Machine, would be made more difficult? --- Are my reasons to think this justified?
    – O0123
    Commented Feb 1, 2015 at 20:33
  • @Vincent again, it shouldn't matter. Comments aren't meant to be permanent. If you fear your comment will outlive a service like bit.ly, then post an answer instead.
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Commented Feb 1, 2015 at 20:34
  • I think it's best to count by "actually displayed" character number. So a plain URL will still count as many but a URL with titled text will only be counted for the title text.
    – iBug says Reinstate Monica
    Commented Jun 5, 2017 at 12:36
  • @AaronBertrand Whether comments are meant to be permanent or not isn't the point. People treat them like they're permanent all the time. Many thousands of "unanswered" questions actually do have trivial answers posted in the form of comments. Treating those comments like they're disposable or temporary seems antithetical to SE's brand---sharing useful answers to useful questions. Some useful comments lean on external references, and I'd expect those comments to live at least as long as those references.
    – Alexander Guyer
    Commented May 18, 2023 at 19:49
  • Hello from 2024! Google's link shortening service goo.gl is scheduled to shut down in one year, and links will rot.
    – Federico Poloni
    Commented Jul 21 at 11:32
9

I'd argue two things:

  • that's the exact niche role that URL shorteners should fill, and
  • a comment should generally be terse.

You're not looking to start an enlightened discussion on the question, but poke and prod about what the subject matter is/ask for clarification. 600 characters can be a bit much for that, in some cases, but it strikes a balance between long, non-shortened URLs and requests for clarification on the question.

Improve this answer
-1

I agree with OP that (if technically and financially feasable) characters from [anchor text] shouldn't be counted when using [anchor text](URL), in regard to the 600-chars limit. But I can imagine money and resources might be an issue.

URL shorteners

I have the (maybe ungrounded) fear that they will expire at some time. Further more, if a given URL changes over time, the heuristic work to find back data (e.g. using data from Wayback Machine would possibly be made more difficult. I can imagine other automatic or manual retrieval/linking/archival issues can arise (e.g. automatic: regarding recursive link retrieval depth)?

Wikipedia offers several examples of URL shortenings' shortcomigs, such as linkrot and an additional layer of complexity (additional HTTP requests and DNS lookups) increasing latency. A change in service of the shortURL's provider such as intervenient ads, may also give unwanted behavior.

Big data issue?

@Aaron Bertrand - I know too little of big data to understand the point (I guess, you might correctly make) about the cost and troubles coupled with expanding of the database columns.

Nothing changes in end-user's design

On the other hand, I think, from the viewpoint of the non-changing final readability and compactness of design and thus (at least in that sense) the unjust punishment of the end-user (who just happens to link to a long URL), ought to be avoided.

Decaying of the comments

The decaying of the comments can be relevant to this question, as URL-shorteners are (in the answers above) thought of as the best way to circumvent the problem at stake; that is when the comments would stay transient → then the URL-shortening services are thought not to change too dramatically or expire before the comments (however, I can imagine URL shorteners can certain technical difficulties for crawlers and the like; see URL shorteners in this answer).

I wasn't aware of their decaying (cf. Comments are temporary "Post-It" notes left on a question or answer.). My first reaction is that this ought to be perceived as an intellectual loss (although I can agree, this is currently perhaps a technical facility in some regards); certainly when perhaps in the future, data storage and serving would become much more efficient and cheaper. Comments, even erratic ones, provide valuable context and enriching discussion. Some voices say an option to make them permanent should be added. If for some design reason; one would like to hide comments; this can still be done, whilst saving those comments.

Improve this answer

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