Wait, is this the same or different than <link rel="canonical">, as in: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html <link rel="canonical"> seemed like a good idea to me. But when I start reading some of those URLs, it's not clear to me if they're talking about the same thing or not. Jonathan Brett Bonfield wrote: > Summary: URL shortening services, such as TinyURL, are a problem. The > folks who have proposed rev=canonical have written some useful > software around it, but rev=canonical has some potentially > insurmountable issues. > > I suggest the following posts if you find this at all interesting: > > The post that drew attention to URL shorteners (by the creator of del.icio.us) > http://joshua.schachter.org/2009/04/on-url-shorteners.html > > A summary of the work on rev=canonical, with good links and also a new > bookmarklet > http://simonwillison.net/2009/Apr/11/revcanonical/ > > An interesting post that makes the case for rev=canonical > http://adactio.com/journal/1568 > > An interesting post that makes the case against rev=canonical > http://www.mnot.net/blog/2009/04/14/rev_canonical_bad > > "I (used to) like rev=canonical” > http://decafbad.com/blog/2009/04/13/i-like-revcanonical > > An interesting assessment of the issues involved > http://intertwingly.net/blog/2009/04/14/Canonical-Reverse-Or-Wisdom-Defying-Shorturl > > I'm not sure what happens now, but I hope the conversation results > quickly in as much software as is needed. > > Brett > > Brett Bonfield > Director > Collingswood Public Library > [log in to unmask] > 856.858.0649 >