CleanMyMac question - how good is it?

ChatGPT has now told me:-

There is no known issue with Safari or macOS that alters thread numbers or the main structure of web links (such as the thread number in an Apple Discussions URL). Thread numbers in URLs like CleanMyMac question - how good is it? - Apple Community are part of the website’s permanent structure and are not changed by your browser or operating system.

However, there are some related points to keep in mind:

• URL Parameters Added by Websites: Websites, including Apple’s forums, often add extra query parameters (like ?cid=em-com-watches_email_thread-view_the_full_discussion-en-us-11282023) for tracking, analytics, or to indicate the source of a click. This is normal and is done by the website or email system, not by Safari or macOS.
• Safari or macOS Bugs Affecting Tabs: There are known bugs where Safari tabs may lose their content or URL, or where pages may not load as expected
• . However, these issues do not change the thread number or the core URL structure. Instead, they may cause tabs to go blank or lose their displayed address temporarily.
• Link Behavior in Emails and Notifications: If you click a link from an email or notification, the link may include extra parameters that do not reflect the actual content of the thread. This is not a bug—it is standard web practice for tracking and is determined by the sender of the link.

Summary:

Safari and macOS do not alter thread numbers or the main part of web links. Any extra information after the thread number is added by the website or email system, not by your computer or browser

. There are bugs that can affect how tabs display content or URLs, but these do not change the underlying thread number or link structure.

=

That makes sense. Do others reading here agree?

Thanks for your views.

Thank you all for your views. I will accept what you say and avoid such software.

When I copied the address in my address bar relating to my question I saw a link referring to an Apple Watch.

Here's a screenshot:-

Can anyone explain that to me please?

Thanks for the reply! You’re right that LLMs are fundamentally statistical in nature - they predict words based on probability, not understanding. But I think it’s also worth acknowledging that they’re increasingly able to perform tasks that resemble reasoning, summarizing, and even basic analysis.

While they aren’t reference sources and shouldn't be treated as such blindly, they can be useful tools - like very capable assistants who need fact-checking. It seems to me that the usefulness depends heavily on how they’re applied and understood.

Curious what your take is on whether LLMs could become reliable with proper citation frameworks (e.g. ones that integrate real-time sources)?

Thanks.

Thanks, Kurt - that clears it up.

I figured it might just be a coincidence or a routing quirk, but good to have it confirmed.