If you're going to do this, I would suggest configuring your webserver to redirect the hashed URL to the canonical one. That will make it less likely for people to bookmark and pass around the URL with the big hash, which is there just to generate the picture.
Does it actually make sense to use an QR code for that alone?
for me a QR code is a bookmarking tool. I am at a restaurant with friends, I like the place and want to keep a note. What's cooler / more practical:
(a) take out a blocknotes, a pencil, and write stuff
(b) put the 10434th business card in my wallet, which by now looks like a watermelon and I can barely put it in my pocket
(c) take my smartphone and "delicious" the URL encoded in the QR code.
What I meant was that if its only a short URL then it might be quicker to type it in vs scanning the QR code - have a look at the example link then I guess you know why.
If you put more info into the code then certainly scanning is the better way but then you're limited with what graphics you can apply to the code.
I hear you, but if there is an industry trend of showing QR codes instead of urls, then so be it. No reason to do things two ways. Or at least, you might as well put the QR code in addition to the text URL if that is what consumers expect.
However, I do feel that the QR code really is overkill for encoding a URL. At some point, couldn't we just standardize on some easily OCR'd font in a some sort of graphical frame and have software recognize/parse that?
