The problem with links

By Mumblefratz Posted May 14, 2009 13:08:57

There is a subtle issue with how links work on these forums that occasionally cause some difficulty.

The issue is that when you post a link to something that’s *on the same site* that you’re posting from, the complete url is not saved only the relative url. Even in the case where the entire url is written out and it *appears* to be complete it really isn’t.

For example the following links are the website from which I’m posting, the forum into which I’m posting and a link to the post itself.

http://forums.galciv2.com
http://forums.galciv2.com/forum/503
http://forums.galciv2.com/352000

The problem is that because the above three links reference the site from which this post was created the links are not saved as written and only the following “relative” paths are stored.

/
/forum/503
/352000

To see this go to forums.galciv2.com and examine the above links and then go any other SD site, like forums.joeuser.com and examine them again.

If the only website that could access this post was the website on which it was created then there would be no problem and all three links would work exactly as if there were complete url’s instead of only relative.

The problem is that, as everyone should be aware, there are at least 12 different Stardock websites and most forums exist on multiple websites. So if someone were to read this thread from a different website and follow the above links they would get different results.

For example the first link would simply direct someone to the forum homepage *of the site* they happened to be on. That’s clearly not the same place that the poster intended and so if referenced from a site different from the site where the post was created the link would make no sense.

The link to the forum is similar but subtly different. In this case it depends on whether or not the referenced forum exists on the site from which the post is read. If the forum exists on the site from which the thread is read then the link will indeed take you to the proper forum but it will be the forum *as it is on that site from which the thread is read*. This actually is not totally unreasonable since why should you leave the site you’re on and go to a different site that may have an entirely different display scheme (like light lettering on a dark background versus the other way around) when you can go to the identical forum without leaving the site or experiencing any display variation.

However if the referenced forum does not exist on the site from which the post is read then you’re taken to a place that I refer to as “limbo” where you can see a list of the “invisible” forums on that particular site (try http://forums.wincustomize.com/forum/412 versus http://forums.joeuser.com/forum/412). No matter how interesting that may be it still leaves you with a link that makes no sense.

Obviously if a forum doesn’t exist on a site then it’s unlikely that someone would be reading a thread that’s contained in that particular forum but I could have easily referenced a forum other than the one that contains the thread in question and if someone was reading the thread from a site that happened to “share” the containing forum but not the forum that’s the target of the link then you would get the above described behavior.

Finally we have the case of the link to an individual thread. In this case the point is pretty much moot because *all* threads can be accessed from *all* sites even if the containing forum is not otherwise accessible on the site from which the link is read. You may end up somewhere “funky” (i.e. a non existent forum) but you simply stay on the same site that you were on to begin with and most folks wouldn’t even notice that the containing forum did not exist on that site.

Really this mostly comes into play when specifically addressing multiple sites in shared forums and what I’ve done in the past to get around this issue is to either post the thread from a site other than the site that will be the target of my intended links, which is rather awkward, or I post it from the site that I’m referencing and then go to a different site to edit in the full url’s, again a bit of a pain.

All of this pain could be eliminated if all links merely saved the entire url instead of a relative path. In this case anyone choosing to follow the link will be taken to precisely where the author intended and everything would make sense.

+124 Karma 32 Replies 3 Referrals

Mumbles...When're you gonna learn? That's just too easy. [e digicons]XD[/e]

Why are you linking to /, /forum/503/, etc. anyways? If you did that on any other site it wouldn't make sense either. Why not just have the full URL then you could avoid this problem? Or did I misunderstand the problem entirely?

Bara

Firefox + Ubiquity + the tolink command = win

Bara, I beilieve that if you copy and paste some links and then use the link button links are relative (or something).

Via both the GC2 and Elemental sites, I get the same results with a Copy Link Location command in Firefox--the full URL is copied to my clipboard. Could IE be 'helping' Mumble too much?

GunslingerBara

reply 2

I'm not linking to /forum/503/ the forum software is doing that for you. No matter what method you use, copy and paste or hand entry of a url that is automatically converted into a link or by explicitly using the Insert/edit link functionality the result is the same. The forum software only saves the relative path to where you are and not the full url. In all cases (except for textual examples of the resultant problem) I entered the full url. If I entered a galciv2 path from the galciv2 site that's when only /forum/503 or the like was saved. If instead I went to joe user and posted the same link it would be saved properly (as long as the link wasn't to something on JU).

Try it out for yourself. Go to Galciv2 and enter http://forum.galciv2.com/forum/503 in any thread in any manner you choose toi enter it. If you view or edit the link at that time then it will "appear" to be the full path. But go ahead and enter it and then later go back and edit your reply and you will see that only the /forum/503 part has been saved. If you did the same thing but from a different site then entire url would be saved.

Look I'll make this as simple as I can. I'm posting this from the GalCiv2 site using FF.

I hand entered the following link.

http://forums.galciv2.com/forum/345

and then entered the exact same text string using the "Insert/edit Link" and it just won't save the full text only the relative portion.

If instead I go to Joe User and do the same thing then the full link is saved.

Via both the GC2 and Elemental sites, I get the same results with a Copy Link Location command in Firefox--the full URL is copied to my clipboard. Could IE be 'helping' Mumble too much?

I'm not copying a link to the clipboard and then trying to paste it. I'm simply typing out the entire url and the forum software insists on saving only the relative portion. It has nothing to do with IE, FF or any other browser.

Yet even simpler, read this thread on GalCiv2 and look at the properties of the link I posted in reply #6. The properties read just as the link appears.

Now follow the link and you're taken to the metaverse subforum on the galciv2 site.

Now go to Joe User and view the same thread and the same link. The link textually appears to be the same but the properties actually point to forums.joeuser.com/forum/345.

Now follow the link from Joe User and see where you end up.

Now do you see the issue?

Alright, I'll take a look a little later. This is obviously something being done on purpose, so it should be as simple as removing some text. However, for the moment the priority is to increase the performance of the forums. An update for that should come soon.

Bara

so it should be as simple as removing some text.

Actually it's as simple as *not* removing some text.

But yeah forum performance is *way* more important than this. I just want someone to simply understand what the issue *is*.

BTW if you ever do happen to go to JU and read this thread and then actually follow the link I posted in reply #6 then could you please tell me where it is precisely that you end up?

I call this area limbo and similar areas exist on *all* of Stardock's site's and it in fact lists all of the "invisible" forums that exist on that site.

However with the difficulty that I had explaining somehting as simple as relative links I really don't want to have to explain invisible forums.

Mumbles . . in the future, you might want to include the steps you did to create the situation in yoru initail post.

Somethign like:

In the JU forums. .

create a new post in this sub-forum . . .

click the link button . . .

type in X . . .

Submit . . .

Edit post . . ..

look at the html code . . .

It is relative "x"

Go to [other forum] . .

look at the same post . . .

click on link . . .

fail.

Go to post . .

right click on link . .

choose copy link location . .

paste in X . .

notice relative path.

Mumbles . . in the future, you might want to include the steps you did to create the situation in yoru initail post.

I explained it as completely and fully as I was able.

The actual steps I took were as follows.

Step 1) Enter link to location on site from which you're posting.

Step 2) There is no step 2.

The problem is that I first had to explain *what* the problem was before explaining how to replicate it. In any case the following simple step if followed completely demonstrate the problem.

To see this go to forums.galciv2.com and examine the above links and then go any other SD site, like forums.joeuser.com and examine them again.

http://forums.galciv2.com/352000

The above is entered merely by typing it in the Quick reply box. Like I said all you need to do to see the problem is to mouseover the link on two different SD sites. Any two. There's no editing the post, copying, pasting, viewing html, right clicking, left clicking or any thing like that.

If you really want the steps here they are.

type the character "h"
type the character "t"
type the character "t"
type the character "p"
type the character ":"
type the character "/"
type the character "/"
type the character "f"
type the character "o"
type the character "r"
type the character "u"
type the character "m"
type the character "s"
type the character "."
type the character "g"
type the character "a"
type the character "l"
type the character "c"
type the character "i"
type the character "v"
type the character "2"
type the character "."
type the character "c"
type the character "o"
type the character "m"
type the character "/"
type the character "3"
type the character "5"
type the character "2"
type the character "0"
type the character "0"
type the character "0"
hit return

That's it. Problem replicated.

I don't know about 'replicated,' but there's definitely something interesting going on. When I point to the link in reply 14 from the Elemental site via Firefox, I see a full URL on my status bar, but that URL begins with forums.elementalgame.com.

I'm all for being conservative with scarce resources, but can it really be a storage burden for a system like the Stardock web sprawl to maintain full URLs in the database behind the forums? I just bought an external 160 gigs for under 50 bucks. That'd cover an awful lot of instances of "http://forums.whateverstardocksite.com..."

That's it. Problem replicated.

I'm actually trying to help Bara resolve a problem that you pointed out; what are you tryign to do? [e digicons]:thumbsdown:[/e] I can think of three ways to post a link in any of the forums.

what are you tryign to do?

Maybe respond to your reply 12 that started out seeming a bit combative and wasn't softened much by a smiley?

I bet I know what invisible forums are. They're the one's I post to and can never find again! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

When I point to the link in reply 14 from the Elemental site via Firefox, I see a full URL on my status bar, but that URL begins with forums.elementalgame.com.

Finally. Go to *any* stardock site and view the link and it will be with respect to the site that you're on. Hence the term *relative* link.

As I said with perhaps excessive verbiage the "problem" is not so much with links to *posts* since *all* posts can be viewed from *all* sites even those sites that don't contain the referenced thread. That's because *all* SD's forum sites share the same database. The problem occurs when the links are *locations* such as a pointer to a forum. In that case the thread that contains the link may be viewable from a site that does not have access to the referenced location and when the link is followed relative to the site that you are on it doesn't exist.

What is so hard to understand about this?

I'm actually trying to help Bara resolve a problem that you pointed out; what are you tryign to do?

I'm sorry. My frustration with people not understanding what appears to me to be a simple issue is showing. That's no excuse for me to get snippy. I apologize.

The point is that I point out a simple link and tell folks to view it from two different places. If they actually went and did that the problem should be obvious. You then tell me to write out the problem in the most obvious baby steps possible. That seemed insulting to *both* our intelligences.

I can think of three ways to post a link in any of the forums.

I agree and it actually doesn't matter. Do it any way that you can think of and you will get the same results.

Try it and see. No matter what method you use to create the link if the link is to a location on the site that you're posting from *only* the relative portion is saved. If someone not on the site from which the link was posted trys to follow the link there's no telling where you end up (actually there is and I call it "limbo").

I bet I know what invisible forums are.

Invisible forums are forums that are accessible to a particular SD site but are otherwise not listed on that site's top level category list.

Since the forums are not visible on the top level category list of a particular site, most people using the site usually won't notice that the forum even exists. It's only when someone creates a new thread in the category or replies to a thread in that category (usually from a site where the forum is perfectly "visible) that people on the site where the forum is invisible will notice the thread scroll by on the recent posts list. This is how you often get totally off the wall responses to threads that may make perfect sense to the site that they originate on (perhaps a game site) but be totally obtuse to someone viewing them from a totally unrelated site (say perhaps a politically oriented blog site).

In point of fact there are at least three different kinds of "invisible" forums dependent on how it is that you may discover that they *can* be accessed from a particular site even though they are otherwise unlisted in the top level category list. I could go on but I doubt anyone has followed me even this far.

Let me see if I got this stright:

1. You post from GalCiv2.com the links above. You post:

http://forums.galciv2.com/forum/503

2. http://forums.galciv2.com is not saved because that is the site you are at. Only /forum/503 is.

3. User on a different site clicks the link, they see the link as from that site. For example, view this page from any other SD forum. If I view it from Sins site, I see the link as http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/forum/503. If I view it from Demigod, I see the link as http://forums.demigodthegame.com/forum/503. This is from the same piece of text in Mumble's OP reading http://forums.galciv2.com/forum/503. Even though the text reads that and that was what Mumble originally typed in as the link, it does not link there unless you are viewing this from the GC2 site. If I went to the GC2 site, I'd see that link instead of all these other ones.

[e digicons]:fox:[/e]

Let me see if I got this stright:

Yep.

/forum/503 is probably a bad example because the Forum Issues forum exists on *almost* all SD sites. The problem only occurs when a link is created from the same site that it's posted from and the same relative target *doesn't* exist on the site that the link is read from.

It's the first condition that results in only the relative portion of the link being stored and the second condition that results in going somewhere unintended.

So posting this from Joe User works everywhere.

http://forum.galciv2.com/forum/248

So posting this from Joe User works everywhere.

http://forum.galciv2.com/forum/248

Interestingly enough, none of the forums I try it from work with that link, including GalCiv2 and Joe User. I get a different error every time, too.

[e digicons]:fox:[/e]

Sorry, all that effort and I left off the "s" in forums so that link works precisely nowhere. Let me try it again.

http://forums.galciv2.com/forum/248

This from Joe User.

*This line added after the fact from galciv2*

While this is posted from GalCiv2.

http://forums.galciv2.com/forum/248

Also there are latency issues when posting from multiple sites.

For example I'm posting this on galciv2 *before* Kitkun's reply and then my correction even appeared on galciv2.

Not sure if that introduces other issues.

*edit*