Shrink that link

Bernie Russell Media
Shrink that link
One of my students asked if he could use Twitter-style URLs when referencing web sources in his dissertation.
These URLs are generated by Twitter apps or stand-alone web sites which translate full URLs into a much shorter version.
This version will expand back into the full URL and point to the correct source when clicked.
How does it work?
Copy your URL
go to (e.g.) http://bit.ly/
paste the URL in the ‘shorten field, and click Shorten.
Then copy and paste the new URL into the footnote or bibliography.
Result?
Compare this full URL:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/10/06/75836/the-world-and-the-dollar-reacts-to-robert-fisk/?source=rss
to the shortened version from bit.ly
http://bit.ly/3QHp23.
Problem solved …
The new URL is much more usable. Standard URLs are long, ugly, and difficult to use, especially if you’re working from a hard copy.
I said this student could use these URLs, and wondered if it might be something we could incorporate into our academic style guide
… or not
But there are problems:
How long do these shrink-wrapped links last?
What happens if the sites offering these services die off?
And these problems got me thinking (after a chat to Paul Stainthorp) about other web-related referencing issues:
What happens if the site archives the source and the URL changes?
what happens if a student links to a source that ends up behind a pay-wall?
(E.g., the Economist currently allows free online access to copy published in the last 12 months – but from 13 October, non-subscribers can only see copy under 90 days old.)
I’ve touched on just two, but there must be plenty of others related to copyright issues, deep-linking, database sources, e-journals?
I’m not sure where this should go. (Do we have some kind of academic standards committee?) But I am sure we need to start thinking about it. I’d certainly welcome some guidance.

One of my students asked if he could use Twitter-style URLs when referencing web sources in his dissertation.

These URLs are generated by Twitter apps or stand-alone web sites which translate full URLs into a much shorter version.

This version will expand back into the full URL and point to the correct source when clicked.

How does it work?

  • Copy your URL
  • Co to (e.g.) http://bit.ly/
  • Paste the URL in the ‘shorten’ field, and click Shorten.
  • Then copy and paste the new URL into the footnote or bibliography.

Result?
Compare this full URL:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/10/06/75836/the-world-and-the-dollar-reacts-to-robert-fisk/?source=rss

to the shortened version from bit.ly

http://bit.ly/3QHp23

User-friendly
Standard URLs are long, ugly, and difficult to use, especially if you’re working from a hard copy. The new URL is much more usable.

I said this student could use these URLs, and wondered if it might be something we could/should incorporate into our academic style guide?

Problems?
But there are problems:

  • How long do these shrink-wrapped links last?
  • What happens if the sites offering these services die off?

And these problems got me thinking (after a chat to Paul Stainthorp) about other web-related referencing issues:

  • What happens if the site archives the source and the URL changes?
  • What happens if a student links to a source that ends up behind a pay-wall? (E.g., The Economist currently allows free online access to copy published in the last 12 months – but from 13 October, non-subscribers can only see copy under 90 days old.)

I’ve touched on just two, but there must be plenty of others related to copyright issues, deep-linking, database sources, e-journals?

I’m not sure where to go with this. (Do we have some kind of academic standards committee?) But I am sure we need to start thinking about it. I’d certainly welcome some guidance.

9 thoughts on “Shrink that link”

  1. Hi Bernie. I’m not sure it’s much help in an answering to your last two questions, but there is a well established referencing convention that you include the date of access when referencing a web site.

    With the date it would theoretically be possible to trace the reference with the wayback machine (http://www.archive.org) but it doesn’t cover everything and of course, the archive might itself become unavailable.

  2. This was a new one on me when I spoke to Bernie yesterday (06 October 2009), and my initial, kneejerk reaction was that the use of a shortcode URL over and above a website’s own ‘native’ URL in a reference list was (a) unnecessary and (b) potentially confusing for anyone reading a work (in this case, dissertation examiners).

    I was – and still would be – worried about the long-term persistence of shortened URLs. I’d like to be reassured that bit.ly (or whoever) aren’t going to start recycling shortcodes after, say, 5 years. Having said that, there’s nothing to suggest that a ‘native’ URL would be inherently more persistent. In fact, experience suggests the exact opposite: that organisations who really ought to know better *cough* British Library *cough* University of Lincoln *cough* *cough* are astonishingly bad at preserving stable URLs for their own webpages.

    Q. Why do URLs change?

    A. They don’t change, people change them.

    Julian’s point about the Internet Archive is a good one. (Google’s cache is another useful way of retrieving a ‘lost’ webpage.) And, as J. says, a web page reference in a dissertation should include the date that the author viewed the webpage. Perhaps, usefully, that date could itself be hyperlinked to the Wayback Machine?

    Contrived example (no idea if this HTML will work in a blog comment – let’s find out!):

    University of Lincolnshire & Humberside (1996) Lincoln University Campus [Online]. Lincoln: University of Lincolnshire & Humberside. Available from: http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/ [Accessed on 19 December 1996]

    The more I think about this, the less of a problem I can see with using shortcodes in printed references.

    1. They make it easier to read the URL off the hard copy and type into a browser; they trim back the worst excesses of long, database-driven URLs.

    2. They save space on the printed page and add consistency.

    3. They’re likely to be as persistent as the native URL (see above).

    4. They’re not necessarily any less ‘authoritative’ than the publisher’s own native web address… besides, a properly-formatted reference to a web page should include [at least one of] the name of the author(s) of the page; the title of the web site; the publisher. Do we really need to display the native domain name as well? And what if that native domain changes, or if the publisher maintains several domains pointing to the same content – with multiple domain spaces, who’s to say which is the canonical URL?

    Strikes me that Owen Stephens of the OU and his Telstar project (www.open.ac.uk/blogs/telstar) might take an interest in this issue?

    Bernie’s last point is the killer – who in the University should arbitrate and rule on these matters? I’m sure he’d be the last person to advocate greater control from the centre, but in matters of long-term academic accuracy and style, there ought to be *some* consistency.

    The library (through the good office of itse electronic resources librarian) could issue an edict (“Hear this: shortcode URLs are fine!”), but who on earth in the University listens to us? 😉

  5. Hi Bernie,
    An excellent debate – raising important issues. Would it not be an idea to form a small group in the School of Journalism to draw up some kind of guidelines in this area? Perhaps you, Bernie, Paul, and I could meet to get the ball rolling?

  6. Being the one who proposed the University building its own… why not make it specifically suited to an academic environment? Tick an option on shrinking and not only will the URL be minimised, but there will also be a rip of the page content taken and the shrunk URL will present a ‘Go to the page, or view our cached copy’ option.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *