I'm curious about the "properness" of using shortened links (a la bit.ly or tinyurl) in research papers. I haven't been able to find any sort of definitive reference about whether or not this is accepted or frowned upon.
I found a blot post by a professor at Texas A&M who stated he was going to use shortened links in an upcoming paper.
I'm working on a paper that won't be published or anything, but it's got a lot of online references that make footnotes horridly ugly, and so I'm taking the opportunity to ask about this.
If it varies based on publishing area/type (scientific, editorial, etc.), that would be great to know as well.
Edit: Since it's coming up in answers... this is a hobby project in which I'm trying to mathematically describe a multi-level marketing scheme. It seems some think it would be frustrating to see a shortened link, perhaps because the actual link would reveal some helpful information when reading a paper.
But what if it's simply a pdf that I was able to find, it's official, but it's not hosted an an "official site" anymore? For example, consider the following:
Lindeen, Monica J., Commissioner of Securities and Insurance and Montana State Auditor (2010). Case No.: SEC-2010-12. Retrieved 30 July 2011 from http://www.starnewsonline.com/assets/pdf/WM21622123.pdf.
Lindeen, Monica J., Commissioner of Securities and Insurance and Montana State Auditor (2010). Case No.: SEC-2010-12. Retrieved 30 July 2011 from http://bit.ly/pBrheo.
Is there a huge difference here? I originally found the link from the actual Montana government site, but it's no longer there, perhaps since the cease and desist order was resolved... now it happens to be downloadable from a "star news online" site. It's the same official document, and downloading the pdf would make that clear.
What would seeing "starnewsonline" in the url reveal that's important for the paper?
Lastly, that edit was an aside. It's helpful to know opinions, but the actual question is still more about official acceptance or practice in the real world.