• moseschrute@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    Telling people to remove them isn’t very practical. Educating people is step 1, but step 2 is finding a browser extension or browser that scrubs the identifiers from URLs. You will inevitably forget to remove the tracker from the url if you do it manually.

  • Hudell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 days ago

    “everything after the ? Symbol can be removed without issue” is a bold statement to make. Reminds me when the TV news had a specialist telling people to look at urls before clicking and check if it ends with “.php” as that would mean it is a virus.

    • SuluBeddu@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Difference being that the ? in URLs separates the resource from additional information

      So unless some website decides to identify the resource in those query field (for example search results pages in a web search), you are generally safe

      In any case, messaging apps will try to navigate to the site to create a caption for your message, and that can be a way to check if it works or not

  • yoriaiko@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    No no no no, keep em up, I can hack them and decrypt and do nasty things with that silly part of code link, to learn so much about our lovely friendship. And I promise I would never use that to harm You, really! hahahahahahahahaa

    • yoriaiko@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Oh source from newsletters? emails? oh that means You actively are using email adres, do any big spam company want validated email adres they can spam on? yeah, sure, 0.30€ each! (afaik, black market value is 100-600€ per 1000 valid addresses, just searched)

      Tbh, unsure if si=Aa1Uc_fRHXC0ay85 or similars can be decrypted, or are just individual, one time identificators, never tried, but bet some do know how to pull value out of them.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          This is what I meant by the “non shortened” ones. If you’re using it through the app you can only press share to get the link and that’s how it comes when you press share. (Or if you press share on the website instead of copying the URL from the address bar.)

        • utopiah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Even better: PeerTube or InternetArchive or (Web)Torrents but definitely not a Google website fueled by surveillance capitalism.

          • baatliwala@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            For a viewer: serious lack of content

            For a creator: extremely unlikely to make a living

            I want them to succeed but it’s an unfortunate position

          • cley_faye@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Call me back when the experience as a content creator is not a nightmare, the experience as a user browsing for content is not a nightmare, when it can handle the load of an even moderately popular video.

            The issue with streaming video online is not a technical one; making a “clone” of youtube, anyone can do so (and indeed, peertube exists). The issue with streaming video online is that if it gets traction, you need a lot of bandwidth and processing power to make it available when it needs to be available. One-two instances and “hopping P2P picks up” does not cut it.

            And, as usual when anyone says anything bad about peertube: the idea is great, but almost by construction it lacks what’s needed to be a valid replacement for centralized, yet HUGE existing platforms: traction, and a truckload of CDN-like instances that can handle the load. If someone putting highly anticipated content online could just “put” their video somewhere and send a link so people can watch it, immediately, and without issue, some would likely do so. Unfortunately, we’re very far from that yet.

            • utopiah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I did some live streams in the past. I share the link to my instance below. I can’t speak for large audiences.

    • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I judge people based on whether they can understand youtube (which you should be changing to invidious or something else anyway) urls. It’s a useful and very short way to see if people have ever paid attention to repeated patterns. The moment I saw the t=XYs, I was amazed.

  • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 days ago

    They are called query parameters and they are used for other things as well. So you can remove the ones you see similar to these but sometimes there might be important stuff you need to get the page to load in those parameters.

    • bandwidthcrisis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      After removing them (or even if there was nothing to remove) I test out links I’m sending in a private browser window to check that they would work for other people.

  • Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    134
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    So annoying to always have to find out how far you can trim a URL before it breaks.

  • NotSteve_@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    4 days ago

    Everything after the ? can be safely removed

    This is usually true but but not always. There’s often times when a URL query like that is used to choose the page to load. I believe wordpress does this

    • kungen@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Only on “I have really bad SEO” kinds of blogs. Query strings have been considered a negative thing for many many years.

      • LwL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Youtube has the video ID as a query parameter, to use the most obvious example…

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        whuh? querystrings are integral to things like pagination. they are by no means a negative thing.

        • criss_cross@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          It’s really weird how SEO snake oil salesmen have broken the web.

          The “no query parameter” rule is such a dogma to the cult that your normal tooling for pages has to go through some weird ass hoops so that it can show up instead as a slug in the URL.

          I hate SEO and SEO peddlers

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I wouldn’t call it integral, pagination query parameters can be in the url params just as easily as in the querystring

          • keegomatic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            4 days ago

            Pagination query params can be in the URL params, but that’s not normal at all. They’re pretty much always use query params, and it’s very reasonable to do so. Filtering, search, and pagination all typically go in query params.

          • lime!@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            that’s very hard to make idiomatic, and if it’s in the querystring it’s easier to change manually because you can annotate each entry more easily.

        • webhead@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Most systems these days do rewrites (like Apache mod_rewrite) to keep the query parameters out of the URL. Even for pagination. It’s not necessarily on by default though because they don’t know what environment you’re in so you need to do things to enable it (like copy a .htaccess file and enable it in settings).

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      WordPress uses a taxonomic system you choose with a mix of the Settings page and how you organize your template hierarchy. To my knowledge there is no out of the box query url functionality in the core system.

    • brown567@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Sometimes I’ll post a picture straight from a duckduckgo search, and it doesn’t work without the stuff after the ?

      (I’m also not sure how long the url is valid for, so I try not to do this too often)

  • kieron115@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    If you’re still using firefox, right click -> copy clean link. works most of the time.

    edit: on desktop, idk if mobile supports it or not. Good suggestions below though for mobile.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 days ago

      Right? The fact that this is an extra bit of tracking information I don’t want makes this an easy sell for anyone looking for a reason to do this, but for me it’s because it just makes links uglier.