While I tend to agree that there is useful information concerning sources in the original long URL, link rot is a constant issue regardless of whether one uses a shortening service or not. I don't find that a convincing argument against the short URL, as there is very little greater likelihood a link will be lost by bit.ly or tiny.url than by simply getting trashed by the owner of the original site. Still, unless there is a compelling reason to shorten, I think one is better off with the original link. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA ----------------------------------------------- 2011-12 Director, Luther Study Centre 23 Haslemere Road Nottingham NG8 5GJ United Kingdom ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:27 AM, yana breindl <ybreindl@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Hello all,
I was wondering what your thoughts were concerning the use of shortened URLs (e.g. tinyURL, bit.ly etc.) to reference electronic sources in a dissertation or other academic publication (along with the title, date, etc. possibly an annexe with the long URL). Has this been done already? Is it acceptable? Are there important differences between various shortening sites?
Thank you,
Yana
--------------------- Yana BREINDL
Ph.D Candidate Dépt des sciences de l'information et de la communication (SIC) Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)
Tél.: + 32 (0)2 650 44 46 E-mail: ybreindl@ulb.ac.be _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/