3 ms·

It's interesting to see the wave of URL shorteners spawned by the constraints Twitter put on its payload. Is the thinking that it's safer for individual organiz

by gr366 17y ago

It's interesting to see the wave of URL shorteners spawned by the constraints Twitter put on its payload. Is the thinking that it's safer for individual organizations to have their own shortener rather than rely on the bit.ly's and tinyurl's of the world because in the future they'll be able to change where they point (e.g. if they adopt a new CMS with different URL scheme)?

lmkg 17y ago
It's also about branding and imaging. First, NPR gets its name out there more by always having it attached to the URL. Second, I'm much more likely to click an n.pr link that was passed along to me third-hand because I know it belongs to NPR, whereas I tend not to click bit.ly links because I have no idea where they link to. Another benefit is that if they own the link, they can track it.
- KWD 17y ago
  At first I was not thinking the branded url shortening would be that big of a deal, but I admit I like seeing them. I don't have a problem with bit.ly links since I use tweetdeck to unshorten them before following them, but it's nice to know the target up front in the tweet.
jackowayed 17y ago
I think it's a mixture of that, the similar reason that if the url shortener bubble pops, tinyurl or bit.ly could go under, and the branding. n.pr, especially if you've ever seen it before, lets people know it points to NPR's site even though it's shortened. Same with 4sq.com, post.ly, etc. One of the big disadvantages of url shorteners is that you have no idea whether it's the story tweet claims it is or child porn.
gchucky 17y ago
In addition to what everyone else said, they can also prevent link rot and make sure that links stay alive.
bootload 17y ago
"... Is the thinking that it's safer for individual organizations to have their own shortener rather than rely on the bit.ly's and tinyurl's of the world ..." If you have your own url shortening you can: - infer from the logs - you also have a definitive mapping of urls from short to long A third party might be cost efficient in the short term but link rot on short url's at some time will be a problem. For a news organisation, the value of inference from logs (who, source, time) could be worth the cost. For a news organisation, authenticity as @jackowayed points out is a big plus. I've often wondered why google didn't take over the shortening market a long time ago.

by gr366 17y ago

lmkg 17y ago

It's also about branding and imaging. First, NPR gets its name out there more by always having it attached to the URL. Second, I'm much more likely to click an n.pr link that was passed along to me third-hand because I know it belongs to NPR, whereas I tend not to click bit.ly links because I have no idea where they link to. Another benefit is that if they own the link, they can track it.

KWD 17y ago
At first I was not thinking the branded url shortening would be that big of a deal, but I admit I like seeing them. I don't have a problem with bit.ly links since I use tweetdeck to unshorten them before following them, but it's nice to know the target up front in the tweet.

jackowayed 17y ago

I think it's a mixture of that, the similar reason that if the url shortener bubble pops, tinyurl or bit.ly could go under, and the branding. n.pr, especially if you've ever seen it before, lets people know it points to NPR's site even though it's shortened. Same with 4sq.com, post.ly, etc. One of the big disadvantages of url shorteners is that you have no idea whether it's the story tweet claims it is or child porn.

gchucky 17y ago

In addition to what everyone else said, they can also prevent link rot and make sure that links stay alive.

bootload 17y ago

"... Is the thinking that it's safer for individual organizations to have their own shortener rather than rely on the bit.ly's and tinyurl's of the world ..." If you have your own url shortening you can: - infer from the logs - you also have a definitive mapping of urls from short to long A third party might be cost efficient in the short term but link rot on short url's at some time will be a problem. For a news organisation, the value of inference from logs (who, source, time) could be worth the cost. For a news organisation, authenticity as @jackowayed points out is a big plus. I've often wondered why google didn't take over the shortening market a long time ago.