Better Magic URLs

[Danielx64]

+1

When they don't have access just show the link as we do now.

We should have an option to disable this in the ACP though as it would add to the number of queries on the page (and this could be done malicously with say 1,000,000 links on one page would generate 1,000,000 extra queries to be run). We can't get all the topics from the site and just use some as some sites have a lot of topics.

+1 for configuration options.

[Pony99CA]

Not necessarily. The part that gets truncated might be part you really want. In my Mercury News example, the end is the better piece, not the start.

Since when does a solution have to be what everyone would want? You can't please everyone.

You're attacking a straw man. I never said that you could please everybody; I was just pointing out the downside to your proposed truncation method. There may not be a better option, but that doesn't mean that it's ideal, either.

They don't have anything to do with what you intended. They are clearly relevant to the topic, though, and the community can decide whether they're useful.

No, imho, thumbnails have *nothing* to with the swapping of the url to the title and THAT is what this RFC is about. If you want thumbnails, you could start a new RFC for that and see how much support there is.

The topic subject that you chose is "Better Magic URLs". I brought up a method that I've seen on other boards that some people consider "better" way to handle naked URLs. If you wanted a more limited scope of discussion, you should have been more precise with your subject chocie. Don't blame others for your apparently poor choice of words.

Anyway, the idea is being discussed here, so unless a Moderator decides to split the topic in two, they apparently don't consider it off-topic.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

+1
When they don't have access just show the link as we do now.

We should have an option to disable this in the ACP though as it would add to the number of queries on the page (and this could be done malicously with say 1,000,000 links on one page would generate 1,000,000 extra queries to be run). We can't get all the topics from the site and just use some as some sites have a lot of topics.

+1 for configuration options.

If we decide to support modifying external URLs (either with text or thumbnails), that should also be a separate option.

Steve

[Master_Cylinder]

The topic subject that you chose is "Better Magic URLs".

The "Subject" is Better Magic URLs but the RFC is *only* about changing the URL to the title. Feel free to make one for the thumbnails and text if you want it.

[Master_Cylinder]

Somebody just requested a 3.0.x MOD to do this for links to pictures which could be done but with the potential legal issues and with many sites not liking hot-linking; if this is added to magic urls then images, imho, should be disabled by default.

[AmigoJack]

I was always against applying titles when making URIs clickable for the most obvious reason: it gives away information one may not have had access to otherwise.

1. Applying titles once per post submit:
   • Advantages:
     1. Low performance hit - URIs have to be fetched only once and could directly be converted to appropriate BBCode, hence they can be saved as such in the text.
     2. Searching posts would also find keywords from such titles.
   • Disadvantages:
     1. Site title changes are not reflected to the link titles.
     2. No information control (topic title from hidden forum)
2. Applying titles per displaying the post:
   • Advantages:
     1. Viewer's permissions can be used to not show titles to otherwise hidden board parts.
     2. Link titles would stay up to date.
   • Disadvantages:
     1. Huge performance hit when posts (or their topics) are being viewed often. To counteract this one should implement a lookup cache so link titles aren't retrieved again within seconds for the same URIs (one URI in the cache could timeout after 24h to then re-lookup its title).
     2. Search can't find keywords for any of those dynamically displayed link titles.

While I) has the best performance, II) offers more control and accuracy (but could confuse, as "clearly" visible link titles can't be found by searching for them). As this RFC is because of people's lazyness I consider I) as sufficient.

[Master_Cylinder]

Since site titles don't change that often I think #1 is best too...