![]() Instead of considering the entire movie, we propose to learn from the key scenes of the movie, providing a condensed look at the full storyline. MLA Style is less flexible.Our objective in this work is the long range understanding of the narrative structure of movies. For my current project, this is my decision to make, but for a formal thesis or publication, would it be acceptable? Chicago Style allows a good bit of leeway. Some eBooks have even longer URLs, so I need this common-sense solution. ![]() The long URL produced a broken link anyway, because Google used the (') character. The short URL indicates the source, and replaces this monstrosity: 's%20house&f=false. Since Bitly now allows customized short URLs, how about this as a citation: "Official Records, Series 1, Vol. It is annoying to see a long, long URL, but equally annoying to see meaningless short URLs (beginning 'bit.ly,' which I mistakenly took to be malware sites at first). I certainly would not rely on them except for things like Twitter, where immediacy of information and brevity is a necessity, and you generally don't worry about how long that link will work. Imagine you used bit.ly or another service for all your references in all your work, and then one day they close down as a company. One small point to make about URL shortners: their longevity is probably even less than actual URLs and can lead to "linkrot". In that case, you could probably argue that it's a legitimate link to the source. For example, the New York Times uses its own, as does You Tube, and many others. One exception I could think of would be URL shortners that are used by the actual website you're referencing. I understand the "neatness" you are referring to, but neatness is, in my opinion, secondary to the goal of clarity of information. I would therefore say using a link shortener should be avoided as part of a list of citations or references, unless you provide both the shortened URL, and the original URL (but providing the original makes the shortened URL redundant). At best, the shortened URL points you in the direction of the work in question, much like an index card in a library points you to a particular book. While the shortened URL does direct you to the location of the work you are citing, the shortened URL is (with few exceptions) not the source of that reference. The issue here is that you are referencing a written piece of work, and the URL is likely to be integral to that reference. It's helpful to know opinions, but the actual question is still more about official acceptance or practice in the real world. What would seeing "starnewsonline" in the url reveal that's important for the paper? It's the same official document, and downloading the pdf would make that clear. now it happens to be downloadable from a "star news online" site. Is there a huge difference here? I originally found the link from the actual Montana government site, but it's no longer there, perhaps since the cease and desist order was resolved. Lindeen, Monica J., Commissioner of Securities and Insurance and Montana State Auditor (2010). It seems some think it would be frustrating to see a shortened link, perhaps because the actual link would reveal some helpful information when reading a paper.īut what if it's simply a pdf that I was able to find, it's official, but it's not hosted an an "official site" anymore? For example, consider the following: this is a hobby project in which I'm trying to mathematically describe a multi-level marketing scheme. If it varies based on publishing area/type (scientific, editorial, etc.), that would be great to know as well.Įdit: Since it's coming up in answers. I'm working on a paper that won't be published or anything, but it's got a lot of online references that make footnotes horridly ugly, and so I'm taking the opportunity to ask about this. I found a blot post by a professor at Texas A&M who stated he was going to use shortened links in an upcoming paper. I haven't been able to find any sort of definitive reference about whether or not this is accepted or frowned upon. I'm curious about the "properness" of using shortened links (a la bit.ly or tinyurl) in research papers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |