Talk:IP address
|
|
Trailing "/" in URLs?
Someone editing an article complained that people need to put a trailing "/" after domain names in URLs. Thus www.city.ac.uk/ would be correct and www.city.ac.uk would not be. Unfortunately the person didn't say why, and didn't leave a reference to where it might be explained to dimwits like me. Clearly it is non-straightforward in that whatever the problem is with missing the "/", it does not affect everyone all the time. Can someone please tell me what the scope and effect of this problem is, and whether it is already documented here somewhere? It is not mentioned in Wikipedia:How to edit a page as far as I can see. It sounds like if it is not explained, it perhaps should be, if it affects the usefulness of articles to readers? Thanks Nevilley 16:05 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Reference - it was this - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - Revision history - 11:52 Jan 26, 2003 . . 66.167.129.231 (/ after hostname in URLs, dammit) - and the change they made, as you might expect, was http://www.peta.org to http://www.peta.org/. Nevilley
- It really doesn't matter; if the trailing slash is missing, your browser will spend an extra few bytes being chastized by the server and be automatically given the full URL with slash to visit. --Brion 16:27 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not fully sure, but I think the difference is like this: The URL http://www.host.domain/foo/bar refers to the file /foo/bar (as in the Unix directory tree) on the machine www.host.domain . But http://www.host.domain/foo/ refers to the folder /foo/ on www.host.domain (and by implication, the file /foo/index.html). Therefore, www.city.ac.uk/ would refer to the file /index.html on www.city.ac.uk while www.city.ac.uk wouldn't really refer to anything at all. Of course, most webservers are probably clever enough to deal with the request correctly anyway, but still leaving out the trailing / is incorrect. -- Arvindn 16:33 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, here it is: webserver spend 1µs in order to redirect the user, and this µsecond, on a big webserver, is multiplicated by 10^6 a day, so this can affect a little bit the computer. But well, for the user, this is the same. I think Google could earn more money if only 70% of its visitors put a slash at the end of google.com, but this is a too geeky information to be said.
- Another too geeky information to be said is that 1 microsecond multiplied by 10^6 is exactly one second. With this pace, it would take roughly 237 years to lose one full day due to those redirects. ;) --ZeroOne 20:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
IP Address for detecting sock puppets
I've seen admins sometimes mention that two users frequently use the same IP address as evidence of sock puppetry. How can I determine another user's ip address? Is this only available to admins? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:30, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
- For privacy reasons, the IP address of logged in users is not generally available, not even to administrators. On Wikipedia, users sometimes let their IP address slip by editing when logged out, or by email or IRC. But to check if a user is a "sock puppet", it's usually necessary to ask someone with shell access. See m:developer for a list. I do it more often than anyone else. I don't usually give out the IP addresses themselves unless it is for a complaint to an ISP, I just say whether or not two identities share an IP address. -- Tim Starling 02:03, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
External links
Why all those external links showing exactly the same trick? And why no link to a user friendly list or searchable catalog of IPs?
- I've just been down several of the edternal links at the end of the article and they all give different addresses. The first 3 blocks are the same, but the last block has been .8 .013 .5 .16 .9 - can anyone explain what is happening (Access thru virgin.net broadband) -- SGBailey 23:01, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
Why remove the external links? I have replaced them. Please leave and comment on why you want rid of them here, SqueakBox 14:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a web directory. Please read Wikipedia:External links. --W(t) 16:58, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- Weyes, please don't remove the external links again. If it gets to the stage where we have dozens, then we'll need to start deleting, but at the moment, it's a manageable number. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I do not understand.I've posted free site (not commercial) with detailed IP info, IP range by Country, theory about IP Spoofing and discussion about IP Adress and guy from CHEZH REPUBLIC found that it does not fall into IP adress category.
What is wrong with you? You leave simple site that use simple coding variables (furthermore commercial!!!) to be listed without any theory behind it and free site that contribute more on this theme remove!?!?!I hope that you can explain me why you leave commercial site that show only IP Adress here and other FREE that show even more remove??? User:82.75.46.XXX
Why are you so attached to your particular site. The difference between free and not free is fuzzy on the net, and your link seemed to be trying to sell proxy IP's, SqueakBox 17:49, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Where did you see that site try to sell proxy IP or try to sell anything???The site list only free open proxy IP and give addition info's about IP address (IP range by Country, IP Spoofing and diverse IP test).Sorry but I still do not see any logic in your decision to remove site that was listed for about 2 months on topic IP Adress? User:82.75.46.XXX
It's not me trying to remove the link. But as I said, sites can make money indirectly, and you have certainly yet failed to convince that this is not a commercial site. Plenty of sites make money without charging, from Google downwards. Please can you say why it is this link is so important to you? as your motivation for putting it in the article is important, SqueakBox 18:09, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Probably you can explain me why is for example http://www.ip2location.com/ leaved that make money DIRECTLY (fully commercial site) and other sites too.All of them make money indiretly via advertenties (Google or other advertenties)?? Where is your logic in such a decision? If you remove one with decision behind about making money via advertenties then apply same decision to all other listed site.And 85% of them charge money directly or indirectly via advertenties. I'm member of site and found it very useful.It make me fiercely as neutral visitor that you does not apply same logic to all other links!? Furthermore as i said on site are excellent IP adress test, detailed list of ip range by country, theory about IP spoofing. (Please do not list my complete IP Adress by User:82.75.46.XXX)
Why don't you make an account if you don't want your IP address made public? I sent you the welcome with that in mind. I agree that all yourr edits to wikipedia have been putting this one link into various articles, in itself very suspicious of a purely commercially driven motivation. Complaining loudly is like to hinder your case not help it. I don't believe this link is appropriate for this article, SqueakBox 18:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
I've account :) If free link that show ip address, ip range, explained ip spoofing is not appropriate for this article then is it ok.Your decision. I do not understand only why links that make money directly are leaved on this topic (wikipedia). If sites sell product (make money directly as site ip2location ) then wikipedia serve as free advertention place for commercial site. Furthermore commercial sites does not provide any definitoin, theory or additional informations about article but simple - charging money for product that they sell with very few words. Still do not understand it.
ip2location
I'm removing the ip2location link. A box with the text "Please wait...Running IP2Location" blocks all the useful content unless Javascript is enabled, leaving only advertising. It's also inaccurate, listing my IP address as Toronto even though a whois correctly shows "City: Ottawa". --Synchrite 20:15, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
- This is an excellent IP locator that I regularly use in my work here, and which I found through this site, SqueakBox 21:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hidden texts comments
Please will people stop engaging in arguments by placing hidden text in the article. This is thje place for open discussion, and I will remove all hidden text arguments regardless of content, SqueakBox 18:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)