9

The "Linked" posts section on the right does not recognize short links when left by a moderator.

An example from Aviation.SE is Why is the air inside airliners so dry (low humidity)?:

The shared URLs in the comments:

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/17294 and
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/1979

only one post is there

... are not showing under Linked on the right; only one post is there that is linked in an answer in long format.


Example 2: a post linked in short format in a comment on this post, doesn't populate the linked section, nor the linked section of the post it links to (there should be now 2 not 1).

Example 3: here.

► All of them are left by a moderator.

Update: As @Makyen has pointed out, it turns out the mod was using a script that omits https:. I've linked the mod here and they've edited some of those comments (so some of the examples here are no longer valid, and it's an issue indeed with protocol-relative links).

  • @Rob: Your two short-links are showing here. Is MSE not affected? – ymb1 Nov 1 '19 at 1:02
  • ymb1, MSE is version: rev 2019.10.31.35305, and Aviation.SE is version: rev 2019.10.31.35305 (lower right corner) so both sites ought to have exactly the same software (and same bugs). Some fiddling with the code is [mentioned here] meta.stackexchange.com/a/337289/282094. Test: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/337284 - can't confirm here on MSE. – Rob Nov 1 '19 at 1:54
  • This is status by design. The moderator used protocol-relative links in the examples you provided (comment source from SE API: 1, 2). It was decided that protocol-relative links would not be linked. – Makyen Feb 8 at 7:38
  • @Makyen: But when I leave short links they do populate the linked section, such comment in example 3. – ymb1 Feb 8 at 7:39
  • 1
  • You used a fully qualified URL (i.e. including https:): https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/16350/14897. The moderator used protocol-relative links: //aviation.stackexchange.com/q/12762 and //aviation.stackexchange.com/q/48622 in your two examples. – Makyen Feb 8 at 7:43
  • @Makyen: I see! – ymb1 Feb 8 at 7:46
  • @AdamLear: Thanks for the review, but see Makyen's comment. It now makes sense. If it is still status-by-design, feel free to close as dupe, if not, thanks for reconsidering. – ymb1 Feb 8 at 7:50
  • 1
    @AdamLear As should be clear from the feature request I linked above, I feel that protocol-relative links should be considered "linked". It doesn't make sense to me to not have them as "linked", unless the system didn't permit users to enter such links, which isn't the case. That such links aren't considered "linked" isn't discoverable by users and is contrary to user expectations. Basically, my POV on it is: If the Markdown results in users being able to click on something and go to a post using only SE systems (i.e. no non-SE link shorterners), then the post should be considered "linked". – Makyen Feb 8 at 18:02
  • @Makyen I think I agree. It's fairly low priority since protocol-relative links are fairly rare, but if/when we have a chance to look into this further, it'd be worth fixing IMO. – Adam Lear Feb 10 at 20:53
  • @Makyen I feel like there should be an explicit, intentional bypass to allow linking to things without them showing in the "Linked" bar. I see some applications where that may be useful. Wikipedia has an explicit template one can use for that purpose, to stop a page from appearing in backlink lists. – Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog Feb 12 at 16:57
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog In theory, I don't have a problem with some explicit syntax to prevent the post being added to the "linked" list. However, I don't think that it should be a side-effect of using a protocol-relative link. Thus, requesting such a syntax would be a feature request. – Makyen Feb 13 at 5:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .