Scratch

veggieman001 · 2011-08-29 22:30:48

Ban URL shorteners such as tinyurl and bitly because people are using them to link to external forums.

scimonster · 2011-08-30 04:08:37

I've heard this one before. I half support. What if (somehow) it checked where it linked to, and then chose whether to ban it or not? :S
The main problem with this is that people's sigs will be disrupted. But if there's the real 150px limit, we don't need a 400 char limit...

Death_Wish · 2011-08-30 06:35:01

I completely support. I've actually been thinking about suggesting this, but forgot xD

Last edited by Death_Wish (2011-08-30 06:35:09)

Jonathanpb · 2011-08-30 07:27:29

scimonster wrote:
The main problem with this is that people's sigs will be disrupted. But if there's the real 150px limit, we don't need a 400 char limit...

O_o You're right yikes

scimonster · 2011-08-30 07:35:04

Jonathanpb wrote:
scimonster wrote:
The main problem with this is that people's sigs will be disrupted. But if there's the real 150px limit, we don't need a 400 char limit...
O_o You're right

Hey, you suggested it first. tongue Here.

roijac · 2011-08-30 07:54:17

don't think it's a good idea - what about URI, like Hardmath's pictures? also the place in the signature is only 400 characters-only a link to a project has more than 50 letters, and if you want also an image, it will be about 80-100 characters for one picture with link. this, without tinyurl etc., which could make this about only 50 characters long. also, i can link to other sites also without tinyurl etc....

BoltBait · 2011-08-30 12:53:29

I do not support.

I like my sig just the way it is, thanks.

veggieman001 · 2011-08-30 13:00:37

scimonster wrote:
I've heard this one before. I half support. What if (somehow) it checked where it linked to, and then chose whether to ban it or not? :S
The main problem with this is that people's sigs will be disrupted. But if there's the real 150px limit, we don't need a 400 char limit...

I don't think there's any way to check...

I do think that extending the limit'd be nice though.

Barf_Bag · 2011-08-30 17:46:21

I totally agree with this idea.

ImagineIt · 2011-08-31 17:11:21

Support. What if someone put it to regular youtube instead of youtuberepeat with it.

TVflea · 2011-08-31 22:11:32

i don't support 'cause what if you want to post a weebly website on a tiny url thing, you can't 'cause you can't get passed the rule

kayybee · 2011-08-31 22:42:28

Then don't put a tinyurl thing, just put the actual website. The whole point is that you don't get passed the rule.

TVflea · 2011-08-31 22:43:41

kayybee wrote:
Then don't put a tinyurl thing, just put the actual website. The whole point is that you don't get passed the rule.

well WHY would you want to do that?

kayybee · 2011-08-31 22:47:15

Because people use tinyurl to link to banned sites such as pun bb, like what you did...

bbbeb · 2011-08-31 22:52:54

imo close this thread, it's not happening, or else sigs are screwed.
/thread

TVflea · 2011-08-31 22:56:55

kayybee wrote:
Because people use tinyurl to link to banned sites such as pun bb, like what you did...

so? my site was educational. it had a purpose, unlike some of the forums, which had no purpose.

Last edited by TVflea (2011-08-31 22:57:09)

agscratcher · 2011-08-31 23:05:33

bbbeb wrote:
sigs are screwed.
/thread

sanddude · 2011-09-01 19:24:45

agscratcher wrote:
bbbeb wrote:
sigs are screwed.
/thread

kayybee · 2011-09-01 20:03:46

TVflea wrote:
kayybee wrote:
Because people use tinyurl to link to banned sites such as pun bb, like what you did...
so? my site was educational. it had a purpose, unlike some of the forums, which had no purpose.

It doesn't matter. If its banned, it doesn't matter what kind of site yours is, it's not going to be allowed. A mod even took it down anyways so it doesn't matter if you use one or not.

sanddude · 2011-09-01 20:42:28

ImagineIt wrote:
Support. What if someone put it to regular youtube instead of youtuberepeat with it.

Then we'd hit the report button.

It's not a common problem, so for now it seems that we can just delete inappropriate links manually. Plus, like bbbeb said, sigs would be screwed.

veggieman001 · 2011-09-01 22:54:16

bbbeb wrote:
imo close this thread, it's not happening, or else sigs are screwed.
/thread

Well there'd obviously be a grace period and an announcement.

scimonster · 2011-09-02 00:54:46

How about a compromise? Banned in regular posts, but allowed in sigs.

Barf_Bag · 2011-09-02 01:43:26

scimonster wrote:
How about a compromise? Banned in regular posts, but allowed in sigs.

People do the links in sigs a lot too hmm

scimonster · 2011-09-02 03:00:19

Barf_Bag wrote:
scimonster wrote:
How about a compromise? Banned in regular posts, but allowed in sigs.
People do the links in sigs a lot too

Just what I said: they are allowed to use them in sigs.

NeilWest · 2011-09-02 07:03:08

I agreee, URL shorteners are a waste of time, plus - I have Parental Controls on my PC (my mum loathes YouTube) so I'm only allowed to see certain sites. This means, when someone uses tinyurl, I can't acsess the link as it says Parental Controls blocked this webpage before it directs me to the Scratch Project intended. So yeah, they should'nt be banned - that would be harsh, but could users limit down their use of URL shorteners in case of people who have Parental Controls are hoping to see their project?

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2011-08-29 22:30:48

Ban URL Shorteners

#2 2011-08-30 04:08:37

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#3 2011-08-30 06:35:01

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#4 2011-08-30 07:27:29

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

scimonster wrote:

#5 2011-08-30 07:35:04

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

Jonathanpb wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#6 2011-08-30 07:54:17

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#7 2011-08-30 12:53:29

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#8 2011-08-30 13:00:37

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

scimonster wrote:

#9 2011-08-30 17:46:21

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#10 2011-08-31 17:11:21

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#11 2011-08-31 22:11:32

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#12 2011-08-31 22:42:28

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#13 2011-08-31 22:43:41

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

kayybee wrote:

#14 2011-08-31 22:47:15

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#15 2011-08-31 22:52:54

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#16 2011-08-31 22:56:55

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

kayybee wrote:

#17 2011-08-31 23:05:33

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

bbbeb wrote:

#18 2011-09-01 19:24:45

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

agscratcher wrote:

bbbeb wrote:

#19 2011-09-01 20:03:46

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

TVflea wrote:

kayybee wrote:

#20 2011-09-01 20:42:28

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

ImagineIt wrote:

#21 2011-09-01 22:54:16

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

bbbeb wrote:

#22 2011-09-02 00:54:46

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

#23 2011-09-02 01:43:26

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

scimonster wrote:

#24 2011-09-02 03:00:19

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

Barf_Bag wrote:

scimonster wrote:

#25 2011-09-02 07:03:08

Re: Ban URL Shorteners

Board footer