|
Posted by Steve on August 21, 2006, 9:25 am
Please log in for more thread options
Hi Guys;
You have been giving me a lot of useful information in the other two
threads. Thanks! Very interesting.
Here is my situation. My friend is writing a book. He has 3100
citations, 1225 of which have URLs.
He wants to Q/C the urls. He removed the http:// from the urls when he
prepared his materials. I wrote a script that extracted the citation
number and the urls from his citation list, prepended an "http", and
printed it on an HTML page as a hyperlink. I used a firefox extension
( http://www.kevinfreitas.net/extensions/linkchecker/ )to check the
links which reports on bad links, skipped (by the checker) links, and
forwarded/forbidden links. It color codes the links it checks.
At this point I am wondering if there is anything better I can do as
far as Q/Cing links short of doing manual checks?
>From the other threads I know that the link checkers are not perfect
and that I should tell my friend that. Is there a more accurate
description I can give him( 90% accurate, mostly good, coin toss etc)
Thanks
|
|
Posted by ken@elsop.com on August 21, 2006, 4:13 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Hi Steve,
You could use LinkScan/QuickCheck which is a free web service to check
for broken links. It is located at
http://www.elsop.com/linkscan/quickcheck.html
Or download a free trial of LinkScan good for 15 days that is more
comprehensive and very powerful. That can be found at
http://www.elsop.com/linkscan/dleval.cgi
Ken
|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on August 21, 2006, 5:32 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Here is my situation. My friend is writing a book. He has 3100
> citations, 1225 of which have URLs.
In a printed book? Even if you check all the links just before the book
starts printing, many of them will have stopped working by the time
customers get the book. So what is the purpose of the URLs? If the book is
scientific, citations and URLs might be needed. In that case, remember to
include both the date of checking and the title or main heading or some
other content identification for the page. That way, people will have a
sporting chance of visiting, now or after 10 years, the page as it was at
the time of citation (assuming they know how to use www.archive.org and it
will remain avaulable).
>> From the other threads I know that the link checkers are not perfect
> and that I should tell my friend that. Is there a more accurate
> description I can give him( 90% accurate, mostly good, coin toss etc)
Throwing percentages isn't useful; 97.5 of all percentages have just been
made up, and the remaining 3.5 % have been miscalculated.
The point is that no link checker can check what the link really points to.
The checkers won't notice anything if the server sends a normal OK response.
Yet the page may contain porn instead of the expected content or, more
typically, a page that tells that the domain is for sale and/or contains
lots of links to pages that someone wants to advertize.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
|
|
Posted by Steve on August 21, 2006, 10:52 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> The point is that no link checker can check what the link really points to.
> The checkers won't notice anything if the server sends a normal OK response.
> Yet the page may contain porn instead of the expected content or, more
> typically, a page that tells that the domain is for sale and/or contains
> lots of links to pages that someone wants to advertize.
That is what I thought and what I have been advising my friend. I
asked what I did as one last chance of their being something more I can
do for him.
He has volunteers standing by to manually check the URLs. The link
checker reports and HTML pages I generated should give them a good
start.
He is in good shape. The book will be printed but will also be online.
He has real citations, the urls are redundant so he is in a good
spot.
|
|
Posted by ken@elsop.com on August 22, 2006, 4:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Steve wrote:
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> > The point is that no link checker can check what the link really points=
to.
> > The checkers won't notice anything if the server sends a normal OK resp=
onse.
> > Yet the page may contain porn instead of the expected content or, more
> > typically, a page that tells that the domain is for sale and/or contains
> > lots of links to pages that someone wants to advertize.
Not true. LinkScan Profiler=99 detects adult content links or any other
type of content the user profiles. It enables webmasters and content
managers to identify pages with "inappropriate" (e.g. adult) content
linked to from their site so they can determine if they wish to
continue to link to a specific site. Furthermore, the product has the
capability of e-mailing an alarm to content managers when such a page
is found. This capability was developed when users discovered that a
link from a medical/education site to a page on breast cancer was
hijacked and replaced with a porno page. More information on this
capability can be found at:
http://www.elsop.com/linkscan/overview.html
Ken
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Checking out the correctness of a site's coding | October 23, 2004, 10:52 am |
| HTML syntax checking tool? | December 9, 2005, 1:20 pm |
| re checking site using other/older browsers? | May 4, 2008, 2:00 am |
| html link from browser link to xml editor | September 9, 2004, 5:53 am |
| link (rel and rev) | September 28, 2004, 10:29 am |
| Link Question | October 3, 2004, 9:54 pm |
| CSS link rollover bug in IE 5 Mac | October 15, 2004, 5:58 pm |
| problem with link ? | November 9, 2004, 2:00 am |
| Get all Link from a Website | November 18, 2004, 2:51 pm |
| interesting Link | May 24, 2005, 4:18 pm |
|
XML Sitemap