All Comments for this Record Category

• response to previous attempt

  Zachary Reidell

  Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:20:02 GMT

  That would probably cause a dns error or something. There's a limit for a lot of browsers. http://www.boutell.com/newfaq/misc/urllength.html

  LIKE (1) · REPLY
• response to previous attempt
  Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:57:30 GMT

  I'm not sure how this record attempt was admitted, since as far as I can tell, there's no proof that the URL leads to a working website. I am positive, however, that the URL does not in fact work. Beyond a certain threshold number of characters, the URL shortening service(s) [I tried a handful, all to the same result] will claim to succeed in creating the URL, but will produce an error message (regardless of browser or whatnot used) and fail to successfully direct to the website. Note that the 389-character entry was denied. 1) This record attempt doesn't meet criteria, and should be handled accordingly 2) Would probably be a good idea to add explicitly to the criteria that the full URL should be included in the info submitted

  LIKE · REPLY
• response to previous attempt
  Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:49:14 GMT

  I'm not sure how this record attempt was admitted, since as far as I can tell, there's no proof that the URL leads to a working website. I am positive, however, that the URL does not in fact work. Beyond a certain threshold number of characters, the URL shortening service(s) [I tried a handful, all to the same result] will claim to succeed in creating the URL, but will produce an error message (regardless of browser or whatnot used) and fail to successfully direct to the website. Note that the 389-character entry was denied. 1) This record attempt doesn't meet criteria, and should be handled accordingly 2) Would probably be a good idea to add explicitly to the criteria that the full URL should be included in the info submitted

  LIKE · REPLY