11 responses to “We are all a rickroll now”

  1. perich

    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.

  2. dreamyshade

    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).

  3. troymccluresf

    I concur.

  4. stoatmaster9000

    Damn you, Jakob Nielsen

    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…

  5. brianenigma

    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.

  6. mendel

    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.)

Leave a Reply