I work for a small SMS marketing company, where we're sending out text message that each contain a unique code for the user (as a variable). My url is rather long, and I want to attach a unique variable for each one.
For example, the full URL might be:
http://www.mybigwebsiteurlishuge.com/more/more/?code={variable}
but I want it to be something like:
http://bit.ly/2398h?code={variable}
Anybody know any services that can do this? Otherwise I need to purchase small domain name just for this.
Thanks so much!
Most shortening services have APIs that you can use to shorten your URLs. Including bit.ly. Yu will have to use their API to the shortened URL.
I kept on looking, and still couldn't find anything suitable, so I got a new 3-character domain name, and also make a redirecting script that changed miniaturized variable names t the full ones. This works just as good really.
Related
I want to check what are ALL the possible parameters for any existing website url. Assuming the site is working with parameters type query string "architecture" (and not MVC for example) something like:
http://www.foobar.com/p1&itemsPerPage=50&size=500
Let's say there are other parameters which I don't know exist, and I don't see them in the url at the moment. For example, parameters like max, day and OtherExoticVariable. Again, I don't know their names but want to know ALL of their names. Is there some way of requesting the server to respond will all possible url parameters?
I would prefer a method with Javascript that I could run quickly through a browser but could also do asp.net c# if necessary.
Thanks a lot!
Ray.
It is the script/app running on the server that decides what parameters are valid. Unless the app provides such a query mechanism you can't do it. The server has no idea what is valid and what isn't.
Not guaranteed to get you ALL query strings, but it is often helpful to Google
"foobar.com/p1& * ".
You will be able to see all the public occurrences of query strings for the foobar.com website.
(As the accepted answer says, there is no general method to access query strings unless the website provides an API.)
I do not think this is possible. Each Web application designer can decide on the parameters individually, and you only know them if you see them being used.
Have gone through https://dev.twitter.com/docs/streaming-apis/parameters
Per documentation it should be able to track URLs such as example.com/foobarbaz but I can't seem it to be tracking such URLs. It just doesn't return me any result when I tweet this URL and track it using Streaming API. Am I missing something?
Pretty late, but I found this by Google so this might help someone...
There are a few answers to this. The main answer being that Twitter treats URLs differently than anything else.
First, make sure you do NOT include the "www".
Twitter currently canonicalizes the domain “www.example.com” to “example.com” before the match is performed, so omit the “www” from URL track terms.
For me, sending the track parameter as "example.com/foobarz" and then tweeting "a test, please ignore: http://example.com/foobarz" worked perfectly.
You can NOT, in general, ask for substrings of URLs:
URLs are considered words for the purposes of matches which means that the entire domain and path must be included in the track query for a Tweet containing an URL to match.
But if you are willing to take every tweet from the whole domain (and a bit more edge cases), Twitter will accommodate:
Finally, to address a common use case where you may want to track all mentions of a particular domain name (i.e., regardless of subdomain or path), you should use “example com” as the track parameter for “example.com” (notice the lack of period between “example” and “com” in the track parameter).
All quotes are from the Twitter docs: https://dev.twitter.com/streaming/overview/request-parameters#track
They have more information, including examples.
Good luck!
I feel dumb for not knowing this, but I see a lot of links in web pages and instead of this:
<a href="http://foo.com/">
...they use this:
<a href="http://foo.com/?src=bar.com">
Now I understand that the ?src= is telling something that this referral is coming from bar.com, but I don't understand why this needs to be called out explicitly. Can anyone shed some light on it for me? Is this something I need to include in my program generated links?
EDIT: Ok, sorry, I'm not being clear enough. I understand the GET syntax with a question mark and parameters separated by ampersands. I'm wondering what's this special src parameter? Why would one site link to another and tack an src parameter on the end even though there's no indication that the destination site uses this normally.
For example, on this page hover your mouse over the screenshot. The link URL is http://moms4mom.com/?src=stackexchangesites
But moms4mom.com is our site. Passing the src parameter does nothing, so why include it?
There are a few reasons that the src is being used explicitly. But in general, it is easier and more reliable to trust a query string to determine referer[sic] than it is to trust the referer, since the latter is often broken, deliberately or not. On the other hand, browsers almost never break the query string in a url, since this, unlike referers, is pretty important for pages to function. Besides, a referer is often done without any deliberate action on the part of the site doing the refering, which some users dislike.
The reason (I do it) is that popular analytics tools sometimes make it easier to filter on query strings than referrers.
There is no standard to the src parameter. Each site has its own and it's usually up to the site that gets the link to define how it wants to read it (as usually it's that site that's going to pay for the click).
The second is a dynamic link, it's a URL that another language(like ASP and PHP) interpret as something to do, like in those Google URLs, but i never used this site(foo.com), then i don't much things about this parameter.
Depending on how the site processes its URL, you may or may not need to include the ?... information.
This is passed to the website, and the server can process it just like form input. Some sites require this - and build their navigation off a single page, using nothing but the "extra" stuff passed afterwards. If you're generating a link to a site like that, it will be required.
In other cases, this is just used to pass extra, unrequired info (such as advertising, tracking info, etc)... In those cases, you can leave it off.
Unfortunately, there's no way to know without trying whether you can remove the "extra" bits from the URL.
After reading some of your comments - I'll also say:
There is nothing special about the "src" field in a query string. The server is free to use it any way it wishes. Unless you know specific info about the server, you cannot assume it can be left out.
The part after the ? is the query string. Different sites use it for different things, and it is usually used for passing information to the server side code for that URL, but can also be used in javascript.
For more info see Query String
I'd like to start using "SEO Friendly Urls" but the notion of generating and looking up large, unique text "ids" seems to be a significant performance challenge relative to simply looking up by an integer. Now, I know this isn't as "human friendly", but if I switched from
http://mysite.com/products/details?id=1000
to
http://mysite.com/products/spacelysprokets/sproket/id
I could still use the ID alone to quickly lookup the details, but the URL itself contains keywords that will display in that detail. Is that friendly enough for Google? I hope so as it seems a much easier process than generating something at the end that is both unique and meaningful.
Thanks!
James
Be careful with allowing a page to render using the same method as Stack overflow.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/820493/random-text-can-cause-problems
Black hats can this to cause duplicate content penalty for long tail competitors (trust me).
Here are two things you can do to protect yourself from this.
HTTP 301 redirect any inbound display url that matches your ID but doesn't match the text to the correct text.
Example:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/820493/random-text-can-cause-problems
301 ->
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/820493/can-an-seo-friendly-url-contain-a-unique-id
Use canonical URLs.
<link rel="canonical"
href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/820493/can-an-seo-friendly-url-contain-a-unique-id"
/>
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/820493/can-an-seo-friendly-url-contain-a-unique-id
I'd say you're fine.
Have a look at the URLs that StackOverflow uses. They have a unique id, then they have the SEO-friendly stuff. You can omit the SEO-friendly stuff and the URL still works.
You are making a devils bargan here, you are trading away business goals for technology goals.
If you were to ask "From a purely business and SEO prospective, is it better to include unique IDs in the URL or not?"; the answer would clearly be to not use them.
The question then becomes, if you do use them, how much does it hurt you in the search engines? The answer is that it definately has some negative impact. How much is yet to be determined.
In terms of "user friendly", no, they are definitely not user friendly.
In terms of Google, they state "Whenever possible, shorten URLs by trimming unnecessary parameters." See their URL structure document.
I'm not aware of any problems caused by adding an ID to a URL. In fact it can be extremely useful, as it allows the human/search engine friendly part of the URL to be changed without causing a broken link to a page that a search engine has already indexed. Using SO as an example, here's a link to your question:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/820493/you-can-put-any-text-you-want-here
Nothing wrong with that. An increasing number of services have started to use a hybrid solution as Paul Tomblin already pointed out. In addition to SO, Tumblr uses this pattern too (maybe it was the first).
Furthermore, in certain services—like Google News—the URL must contain a unique numeric ID.
Getting rid of the parameterized URL will definitely help. From my experience, including the ID does not hurt or help, as long as there are no '?key=value' pairs in the url.
I have two seemingly contradictory points to make here:-
Nobody looks at URLs! Experience has "trained" browser users to render the "Address" box contents as invisable, they know the contents will be any two of 'ureadable', 'meaningless' and 'confusing', hence they just ignore it completely.
Using a String which can be easily converted to an integer may offer a slight performance advantage over using a longer string which is slightly harder (hash() vs. to_int() ) to convert into an integer. However in the context of the average web application any performance difference would would be negligable.
My advice would be to stick with what your comfortable with.
Use something like modrewrite to parse URLs before they reach your server. So you could convert a slug like http://oorl.com/99942/My-Friendly-Text-For-Search-Engines/ into http://oorl.com/lookup.php?id=99942. This will also let you change slug and keywords used to optimize certain links without damaging functionality.
Duplicate refer cause more negative impact compare to friendly URL, be careful about using fake text with id, your competitors could miss use this.
Yes, and in fact it's more SEO friendly to include a number in your url as it implies to google that you are consistently updating your content.
I am fairly sure that it makes it much more difficult to get indexed in Google News if you don't have an incrementing number attached in some way to your URLs.
I need a user to be able to enter a URL, and would like to make sure it is as wholesome as possible. Things like checking that there is http:// at the front, no double-dots, perhaps valid TLD, trailing slash (I have to add the final page).
I figure this is such a common requirement that it must exist already. Suggestions?
[edit:] To be clear, this is a run-time requirement in a Windows Service. The aim is to get the best from the URL read from the configuration, rather than validate what the user typed in. In essence, if I can adjust the URL and make it work, then that is what I'd like to do. The download will be a specific file, so if it all goes wrong it won't get the wrong thing from another server by mistake.
How about using the PathIsURL function in the Windows API?
Update:
This is already wrapped in the Delphi RTL in the ShLwApi unit.
Have you had a look at "What is the best regular expression to check if a string is a valid URL"? It is not Delphi specific, but might get you started.
Perhaps some of the suggestions here might help.