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

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:02:50 -0400, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote:

"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"?

"Stable link pledge" sounds OK.

--
"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, 8 Jul 2004 19:56:49 +0100, zen19725 (AT) zen (DOT) co.uk (phil hunt)
wrote:

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.

or indeed "This link is stable". (of course, "this link" should really
be "this page's URL", but everyone's already pretty lazy about
language surrounding the web.)

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

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

I don't like this one. It makes me wonder what a "Fake Link" would be.
I imagine something like this:

<span style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;">clicky!</span>

(okay, my example is a joke! My dislike of the term still stands,
though.)

I think the reason everyone's having so much trouble coming up with
terms is that what you're trying to describe really isn't a concept in
itself. A "link" (in hypertext terms) is simply an item with in a
resource which has some connection to some other resource. By that
definition, it's hard to imagine what a "stable" or "real" link might
be.

Finding a short name for "I will do my best to keep this URL pointing
at this content for as long as I can" seems like quite a hard
proposition. I would like it better if someone made a "Don't link to
me!" icon and somehow persuaded all of those who don't understand
hypertext to use it!

Best regards,
-Claire

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 19:23:51 GMT, Claire Tucker <fake (AT) invalid (DOT) com> wrote:

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

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

I don't like this one. It makes me wonder what a "Fake Link" would be.
I imagine something like this:

span style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline;">clicky!</span

:-)

(okay, my example is a joke!

I've seen web pages that actually do that, though.

Finding a short name for "I will do my best to keep this URL pointing
at this content for as long as I can" seems like quite a hard
proposition.

Or something meaning "the intent of the web was that someone can
click on a link to get to content; when people put the content
behind a registration page, particularly when they do it in a
nasty bait-and-switch manner by, they are polluting the web and
showing contempt for web users. Consequently we would like to
discourage people from engaging in this practise, and discourage
them from linking to sites that engage in it."

But I don't think all that would fit 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)

phil hunt wrote:

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

Actually, no, a permalink guarantees to be a *permanent link* much like
the 3 points you state above. Why do you think it's so different?
Because it's blog-terminology?


--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

On 12 Jul 2004 08:06:38 GMT, Philipp Lenssen <info (AT) outer-court (DOT) com> wrote:

phil hunt wrote:


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

Actually, no, a permalink guarantees to be a *permanent link* much like
the 3 points you state above. Why do you think it's so different?
Because it's blog-terminology?

Partially.

Permalink is a work with already existing connotations, roughly
"this is a link from the front page of the blog to a page just
containing this one story". Of course, it also involves the notion
of permanence, which is one of the things I'm looking for, but my
concept includes other ideas as well, such as "don't link to pages
that are encumbered by registration, if you can avoid it".

OTOH... permalink does have the advantage of being already
recognisable.

--
"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)

phil hunt wrote:

Permalink is a work with already existing connotations, roughly
"this is a link from the front page of the blog to a page just
containing this one story". Of course, it also involves the notion
of permanence, which is one of the things I'm looking for, but my
concept includes other ideas as well, such as "don't link to pages
that are encumbered by registration, if you can avoid it".

To me a blog archive is a great way to tell others "this is permanent".
(As permanent as things go.) There are a great many blog archives (with
great content) which you can google. Often blog authors are very
conscious of their backlinks and would not simply move their archives
-- after all, they used *permalinks* to point to them.

--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

zen19725 (AT) zen (DOT) co.uk (phil hunt) wrote in message
news:<slrnceh1e1.m0.zen19725 (AT) cabalamat (DOT) cabalamat.org>...

I've now produced some logos for "Link Stable" (aka "Campaign for
Real Hyperlinks").

<snip>

I've put the logos on my blog at:

<snip>

http://www.zen19725.zen.co.uk/weblog/art_257.html

Let me know what you think...

I think the first link ("My previous weblog article") in that
blog entry leads to a 404 error message.

It all seems a bit of a farce to me. HTTP-link permanence is one
of the things that can never really be guaranteed, because
(ultimately) it depends on the permanent allocation of domain
names. Unfortunately, domain name allocations depend on agencies
(the registrars and registries) who have no vested interested in
link-stability. (In fact, as the registration system stands now,
registrars make more money from multiple short-term
registrations of a given domain than they would from a long-term
registration.)

Hell, the URLs in your blog still use file extensions, which is
a strike against their true long-term stability:
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

If you really want URI permanence, you need to step outside the
DNS system, start thinking about URNS, and start developing
URN-based resolvers. That's a pretty big project. A lot bigger
than a couple of logos.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.01

iD8DBQFA+1/PcpuEJT2bpHsRAlBmAKDxFw0Fx/uMjeA7JgKrrLwx28ffnACfXTbV
UizLL9jakpJyGA1NITJzhmw=
=mZLC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 18 Jul 2004 22:45:20 -0700, Michael Bauser <michael (AT) bauser (DOT) com> wrote:

http://www.zen19725.zen.co.uk/weblog/art_257.html

Let me know what you think...

I think the first link ("My previous weblog article") in that
blog entry leads to a 404 error message.

*blush*... that's now been fixed.

It all seems a bit of a farce to me. HTTP-link permanence is one
of the things that can never really be guaranteed, because
(ultimately) it depends on the permanent allocation of domain
names.

I've set myself the less ambitious goal of making the link permanent
for as long as the website exists.

Unfortunately, domain name allocations depend on agencies
(the registrars and registries) who have no vested interested in
link-stability. (In fact, as the registration system stands now,
registrars make more money from multiple short-term
registrations of a given domain than they would from a long-term
registration.)

Hell, the URLs in your blog still use file extensions, which is
a strike against their true long-term stability:
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

If you really want URI permanence, you need to step outside the
DNS system, start thinking about URNS, and start developing
URN-based resolvers. That's a pretty big project. A lot bigger
than a couple of logos.

I'm more concerned with getting rid of annoying registration pages
than redesigning the entire internet from scratch.

--
"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)