We are all a rickroll now

[substitute]

Blog software that includes the headline in the url ruins things. I don't know why, but if I show someone a link and it has the dumb headline in there, it somehow spoilers the story even when it's not a story one would expect to be spoiled.

Am I crazy, or is the whole-story-in-url just a bad thing? Especially with photos.

Comments

[perich.livejournal.com]

Story in the URL is good for increasing search visibility. Not sure if that's the explicit intention or just a happy accident, but it's a factor.

[substitute.livejournal.com]

True, and "SEO" has now become way more valuable than usability or the actual (cringe at word) content.

[perich.livejournal.com]

I say a lot about that in my latest blog post, which you can read here.

[substitute.livejournal.com]

hahahaha excellent

[dreamyshade.livejournal.com]

i like headlines in the url, or a summary at least, or some other sort of useful hint at its content. helps me decide whether or not to click when it's a bare url without much context (such as in the cases of lazy deliciousers, irc pasters, bloggers with snarky anchor text, etc).

[substitute.livejournal.com]

I get that. I think it's more like sending someone an url that turns out to be blog/totally/hilarious/dog/bites/guy/in/last/3/seconds or /breaking/news/presidentwithoutpants where once you've seen the url there's no point, and the fun of seeing the headline or the pic and going OMG is just punctured.

or you know, rickroll'd

[dreamyshade.livejournal.com]

ok, here is an example where i agree: http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-kittens-attack-feet.jpg

[troymccluresf.livejournal.com]

I concur.

Damn you, Jakob Nielsen

[stoatmaster9000.livejournal.com]

It's all Jakob and SEO, now. His emphasis on using 'microcontent' to push the inverted-pyramid style to anything in an html H tag, and to the url itself, is part of the issue, I think. It's great for skimming CNN, good for eliminating the 'mystery meat' quality that a lot of posting can take on, but it's murder on stuff where the punch line or the payoff lies in any kind of surprise...

[brianenigma.livejournal.com]

I actually prefer the full descriptive URLs. example.com/blog/we-are-all-a-rickroll-now, to me, is more descriptive and informative (and therefore better) than example.com/index.php?p=1737886. I generally know whether or not I want to click it by the title. Even if it's a "spoiler" like example.com/dog-bites-president-without-pants, I don't mind. If it's funny to see someone get bit in the nuts, it should be able to stand on its own; it'll still be funny regardless of the title. If it was supposed to be a surprise, the original content poster should have named it differently.

[mendel.livejournal.com]

Description-of-photo-in-URL has completely ruined sharing icanhascheezburger photos on IRC.

http://www.icanhazcheezburger.com/2008/03/20/funny-picture-a-tiny-tiny-kitten-on-his-back-saying-i-can-haz-luv.jpg

It works fine for informative blog posts, though, and I love this URL shortener.

(And of course all SEO is sympathetic magic.)