When a link is posted, do you prefer that the raw URL be posted (URL - Wikipedia), or a hyperlink?
I prefer a hyperlink that gives a hint as to what the link is about, and mousing over it gives the URL anyway.
This.
Hyperlink, especially because there’s always a problem with the code dropping the end parenthesis on bare URLs
Exactly. With strong emphasis on “gives a hint”. If I were King of the Internet, I’d make posting a YouTube link with nothing but a hyperlink reading “this” cause your device to deliver electric shocks until you promise to never do it again. Mousing over YouTube links doesn’t tell you anything, other than it’s a video.
I’ve seen it with periods as well so any ending punctuation presumably gets dropped.
I don’t really care but if you’re writing in somewhat academic style as opposed to making an normal post I prefer to see a single link in the bibliography rather than multiple links to the same thing for each inline citation.
Not that we have much of a choice here. If the URL is too long the board software automatically shortens it to a hyperlink with ellipsis, even when I manually write out the URL with tags and disable automatic link parsing. See example below
[NOPARSE]https://www.reuters.com/article/urnidgns002570f3005978d8002576f60035a6bb/long-url-please-idUS98192761820100330[/NOPARSE]
becomes
A workaround is to slightly modify the URL inside the BBCode tag, for example adding an extra parameter. Here I add a number sign “#”.
[NOPARSE]https://www.reuters.com/article/urnidgns002570f3005978d8002576f60035a6bb/long-url-please-idUS98192761820100330[/NOPARSE]
becomes
~Max
This +1
And don’t use link shorteners or whatever they are called. It’s unnecessary.
Just use Reuters article about ‘topic’
Another vote for this.
I think I like the URL a little better but mostly I want pie. What can I say? Polls make me hungry. 
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190702179860943702770539
Sorry I ran out. 
A hyperlink is a more efficient use of space:
Touché.
Just as Hostess Fruit Pies are more efficient ways to eat pie. And you can distract supervillains by throwing them in their direction.
So far as I can tell, the only reason to use a naked URL is because you can’t figure out how to use the URL tag. Which is a perfectly fine and valid reason to do it. But it does mean that nobody, ever, is going to be putting in meaningless alterations to the URL to force the URL condenser to leave it alone.
Either, although pasting a hyperlink on a phone is a pain in the ass, so I understand why people (me included) just paste the raw URL.
Also, without an explanation of what the hyperlink is I can’t mouse over on a phone to get a clue. At least when I see a YouTube URL I expect a video.
So, in summary, please include a damned description of what your hyperlink or URL goes to.
Like that?
Yeah. Just like that. And I’m surprised I didn’t get Rick rolled!
I almost always use the URL code. Once in a great while I do a naked URL. E.g., if there’s something about the URL itself I want to give some attention.
The real issue is people not providing context to a link. Those “This is a great video <link>.”-type posts are detestable.
You mean like this?
Gralla, P. (2010, March 31). Long URL Please. Reuters Thompson (Republished from PC World). Retrieved November 7, 2019 from https://www.reuters.com/article/urnidgns002570f3005978d8002576f60035a6bb/long-url-please-idUS98192761820100330
~Max