Logos for "Link Stable" (was: a campaign for real hyperlinks)

On 7 Jul 2004 15:29:58 GMT, Philipp Lenssen <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com> wrote:

Jim Ley wrote:

On 7 Jul 2004 09:36:19 GMT, "Philipp Lenssen" <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com
wrote:

phil hunt wrote:
A permalink to the page is:
http://www.zen19725.zen.co.uk/weblog/art_257.html

Let me know what you think...

"sta.ble2 n. A building for the shelter and feeding of domestic
animals, especially horses and cattle."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stable

I think you want the 3rd sense from Wordnet:
"resistant to change of position or condition"

Stable makes sense to me, and I definately think it makes more sense
than coining a new word.


My whole point was that "Link Stable" is a new term. This is already
called "permalink". Or am I missing something? When I read "Link
Stable" I initially did not understand it

The campaign (whether it'sa called Link Stable, or Stable Links, or
Real Hyperlinks, or whatever) is about 3 things:

1. ensuring that when someone follows a link they get to the
content behind it not some annoying registration scheme

2. giving some assurance to people who link to a page that the page
isn't likely to go away or be hidden behind registration

3. ensuring that pages stay up and are addressable via an unchanging
URL

I can't use "permalink" because it's an already existnig word and
has already aquired a meaning other than what I am looking for

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:08:34 GMT, Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites (AT) www (DOT) invalid> wrote:

On 7 Jul 2004 15:29:58 GMT, Philipp Lenssen wrote:

My whole point was that "Link Stable" is a new term. This is already
called "permalink". Or am I missing something? When I read "Link
Stable" I initially did not understand it

I wondered if it meant a 'house for horses',
then pondered whether it might be a 'cute'
way of expressing 'Links Table'.. It was
only the context that made it apparent it
was a link that would not change.

(shrugs) I prefer 'permalink'.

How does "stable link guarantee" grab you?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:56:26 +0100, phil hunt wrote:

..I prefer 'permalink'.

How does "stable link guarantee" grab you?

'Stable Link' solves the 'Links Table'
problem, but I feel 'stable link guarantee'
is just too wordy. Try saying it 10 times
fast.

Besides that, there is still the ambiguous
meaning of the word 'stable'.

OTOH 'Permalink' makes me think the word
was *about* to read *permanent*, but changed
it's mind at the last second ..kinda cute.
Stable Link just does not have that same
twist to it.

...Sorry, maybe it is just me, the next person
(well I think we have already seen some in the
thread) may love it and implement it immediately.

I do support the concept, and I hope it
is a raging success, in whatever form it
is launched and/or evolves.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

"phil hunt" <zen19725 (AT) zen (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design:

The campaign (whether it'sa called Link Stable, or Stable Links, or
Real Hyperlinks, or whatever) is about 3 things:

1. ensuring that when someone follows a link they get to the
content behind it not some annoying registration scheme

I'm just one data point, but I think that seems _very_ far from any
notion of "stable" or "stability". If it always needs a
registration, then it's stable -- but that's not to say that it's
good.

Real Hyperlinks conveys that message better, though it's not so good
for your other two meanings.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Stan Brown wrote:

"phil hunt" <zen19725 (AT) zen (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design:
The campaign (whether it'sa called Link Stable, or Stable Links, or
Real Hyperlinks, or whatever) is about 3 things:

1. ensuring that when someone follows a link they get to the
content behind it not some annoying registration scheme

I'm just one data point, but I think that seems _very_ far from any
notion of "stable" or "stability". If it always needs a
registration, then it's stable -- but that's not to say that it's
good.

Real Hyperlinks conveys that message better, though it's not so good
for your other two meanings.

This is true. It's difficult to sum up in two words, but on reflection I
think I prefer 'Real hyperlinks' to 'Stable link' or 'Link stable'.

I'm not so keen on permalink, it makes me think of permafrost for some
reason, and I don't like coining new words too much.

Any other ideas?

--
Matt


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Andrew Thompson" <SeeMySites (AT) www (DOT) invalid> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design:

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:56:26 +0100, phil hunt wrote:
How does "stable link guarantee" grab you?

'Stable Link' solves the 'Links Table'
problem, but I feel 'stable link guarantee'
is just too wordy. Try saying it 10 times
fast.

What about "pledge" or "promise" instead of "guarantee"?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 00:28:41 GMT, Randall Bart <Barticus (AT) att (DOT) spam.net> wrote:

'Twas Wed, 07 Jul 2004 11:14:21 GMT when all
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc stood in awe as jim (AT) jibbering (DOT) com (Jim
Ley) uttered:

Stable makes sense to me, and I definately think it makes more sense
than coining a new word.

"Stable link" means a link that is unchanging. "Link stable" means a
place for housing links.

Or: (a) link (which is) stable.

But I agree it is potentially misleading, and therefore a
sub-optimum term.

How about "Real Link", as text to go on a button?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 21:50:03 -0400, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote:

"phil hunt" <zen19725 (AT) zen (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design:
The campaign (whether it'sa called Link Stable, or Stable Links, or
Real Hyperlinks, or whatever) is about 3 things:

1. ensuring that when someone follows a link they get to the
content behind it not some annoying registration scheme

I'm just one data point, but I think that seems _very_ far from any
notion of "stable" or "stability". If it always needs a
registration, then it's stable -- but that's not to say that it's
good.

Yes, you're right.

Real Hyperlinks conveys that message better, though it's not so good
for your other two meanings.

Some other ideas: "Real link campaign", "Authentic Link", "Reliable
Link".


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:53:21 +0100, Matt <nospam-1 (AT) spam (DOT) matt.blissett.me.uk> wrote:

Stan Brown wrote:

"phil hunt" <zen19725 (AT) zen (DOT) co.uk> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design:
The campaign (whether it'sa called Link Stable, or Stable Links, or
Real Hyperlinks, or whatever) is about 3 things:

1. ensuring that when someone follows a link they get to the
content behind it not some annoying registration scheme

I'm just one data point, but I think that seems _very_ far from any
notion of "stable" or "stability". If it always needs a
registration, then it's stable -- but that's not to say that it's
good.

Real Hyperlinks conveys that message better, though it's not so good
for your other two meanings.

This is true. It's difficult to sum up in two words, but on reflection I
think I prefer 'Real hyperlinks' to 'Stable link' or 'Link stable'.

I'm not so keen on permalink, it makes me think of permafrost for some
reason, and I don't like coining new words too much.

Any other ideas?

I'd also like to extend the campaign to encourage webmasters to
link to RealLinks in preference to PotentiallyTransientLinks. A
webmaster who signs up to the campaign could put an approriate logo
on their website (which obviously would link to a page explaining
what the Real Links Campaign is all about).

This logo would have to be different from the logo which means "this
page is a RealLink". The logo might say something like "Website
supports Real Links" -- though I imagine there are snappier ways of
putting it.

For a website to support the campaign it would have to agree not to
include links to news (and other) sites which are known to require
registrsation after a while, or if it does include those links, to
label them as such. Perhaps the site could provide a preferences
option for users of the website to not get such links if they don't
want to.

I'm thinking here particularly of Google News, where when you search
for news on search text, it includes results from subscription-only
sites. It would be nice if Google News had a preferences button so
that a user could set it to only include sites that offer unfettered
content.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:24:20 GMT, Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites (AT) www (DOT) invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:56:26 +0100, phil hunt wrote:

..I prefer 'permalink'.

How does "stable link guarantee" grab you?

'Stable Link' solves the 'Links Table'
problem, but I feel 'stable link guarantee'
is just too wordy. Try saying it 10 times
fast.

Besides that, there is still the ambiguous
meaning of the word 'stable'.

OTOH 'Permalink' makes me think the word
was *about* to read *permanent*, but changed
it's mind at the last second ..kinda cute.
Stable Link just does not have that same
twist to it.

"RealLink"? "ReliableLink"? "ReliaLink"? (On second thoughts i don't
like that one much)

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)