The Essential Absurdity of the Permalink

Permalinks bug me. It’s partly the idea (sorry Jason), and partly the word. Why do blogs require different nomenclature for story/archive links than does everywhere else in the media? Consumers of the N.Y. Times, et al., are used to clicking on a story title and getting to the story/archive that way, why are blogs any different?

Yes, yes, some bloggers don’t always have headlines, so they need another solution, but let them come up with their own damn thing. It doesn’t mean the rest of us have to adopt goofy techno-jargon as some gesture of obscurantist and bizarre solidarity.

There, I feel better.

Related posts:

  1. The Essential Stupidity of Price Targets
  2. The Essential Implausibility of Abercrombie and Fitch
  3. The essential futility of MBA programs
  4. Death and How to Avoid It
  5. The Baja Bubble

Comments

  1. richard says:

    I always thought this type of URL format was just optimising for search engines.

  2. Nick Douglas says:

    Yeah, I think the same thing about “permafrost.” Like, come on, Antarctica, why you gotta be all different?

  3. Why do blogs require different nomenclature for story/archive links than does everywhere else in the media?

    They don’t require a different format, of course, but the “accepted” permalink format comes directly from the W3C’s Cool URIs Don’t Change.
    I agree that the word is hideous, though.