Yes, no urls in recent citations.. probably a bad idea to have used/relied on them anyway. The fundamental principle of a citation is to enable others to verify our work by going back to the source - verify our work now or in ten/twenty years. In ten years time expecting an ACOM url to be valid is a big mistake. The ACOM urls are tightly bound to the current design and structure of ACOM's systems. Eventually, tomorrow or in ten years time, the system design will need to be overhauled - it will be a chore to keep the "old" urls working and ACOM will abandon them. Compare a FamilySearch citation url with one from ACOM.
What will remain for generations to come are correct citations that point to the source. ACOM can't even get the very basics right - simply putting correct census roll, page, image information in citations eludes them. Just yesterday:
Citation from source index record:
Year: 1920; Census Place: Tallula, Menard, Illinois; Roll: T625_393; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 106; Image: 248.
Citation as recorded in AMT (in exported .ged and of course synced to FTM):
Year: 1920; Census Place: Tallula, Menard, Illinois
The AMT source citation attachment process has been broken for a long time and is still broken. This process keeps adding more and more bad citations to all our hard work. In my insignificant little trees I have literally thousands of bogus source citations,, but why worry, I should just "Suck it up" and be grateful. If we really are "good people here striving for perfection" aint never going to get there with the very basics not done correctly - source citations.