3 ms·

I don't really see how they are bad for the web, a shortened link is still a link, reading Tim-bernes Lee today (http://bit.ly/dhfd2S http://bit.ly/dhfd2S) he e

by rakkhi 16y ago

I don't really see how they are bad for the web, a shortened link is still a link, reading Tim-bernes Lee today (http://bit.ly/dhfd2S http://bit.ly/dhfd2S) he emphasized the importance of links and links from anywhere to anywhere rather than walled gardens like Facebook or iTunes. In fact increasing amount of internet connectivity is on mobile devices and with the smaller space and harder to use keyboard shorter links are essential. As you say it would be imposibble to use a service like twitter to its full effect without link shortening. One downside could be the extra tracking and analytics URL shortening services provide, and people could see this as an invasion of their privacy. Personal belief is that there is so much tracking in the form of web analytics that goes on on the internet anyway that URL shortening is hardly making a difference. It has also provided some businesses like bit.ly with a way of generating revenue and creating jobs and for bloggers and people like me who do like to share what I find interesting on Twitter or Facebook with a way of seeing if anyone is actually reading what I have shared

alanstorm 16y ago
They're usually considered bad for the web because, if the shortening service goes away any hyperlink that used the shortener instantly breaks. Dead links are a fact of life on the web, but it's the idea that one domain-name going away would break links to thousands of different domains that unsettles people.
- rakkhi 16y ago
  Fair point, but is this not just a reason for sites to register their own URL shortener? e.g. if you shorten something from techcrunch or read write web it shortens to their domain rather than bit.ly etc. Alternative is to also use goo.gl for more stability
notahacker 16y ago
A shortened URL is still a link, but the whole idea of a TLDs and text-based rather than numeric URIs is that you should have some idea of where you're being sent: PayPal.com or PhishingSite.com and have some chance of remembering at least enough of the web address to be able to navigate your way to the specific page. I realise this is an ideal that's never been fully realised, but obfuscating evrything with http://bit.ly/unmemorablealphanumericcode http://bit.ly/unmemorablealphanumericcode is definitely a retrogade step.
- Skywing 16y ago
  Agreed. I wrote an IRC bot that says the html <title> of the page being linked to if it is behind a shortening service. I was surprised by the number of people that actually wanted the bot back whenever I initially disconnected it.
  - rakkhi 16y ago
    Sure but these services are hardly new, tinyurl has been around for years and I am not aware of a study linking them to a material increase in phishing. Bottom line with phishing is that people that fall for it are not technical and would click on a link regardless of whether it is short or full. This is also why in the anti-fraud business we don't place much reliance on measures like site to user authentication - they just don't work If you do like to see the full URL try, Chrome muse extension. It can shorten and expand URL's: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/digfdjelalmeldlplgcapchelgnlkomc?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/digfdjelalmeldlp...

by rakkhi 16y ago

alanstorm 16y ago

They're usually considered bad for the web because, if the shortening service goes away any hyperlink that used the shortener instantly breaks. Dead links are a fact of life on the web, but it's the idea that one domain-name going away would break links to thousands of different domains that unsettles people.

rakkhi 16y ago
Fair point, but is this not just a reason for sites to register their own URL shortener? e.g. if you shorten something from techcrunch or read write web it shortens to their domain rather than bit.ly etc. Alternative is to also use goo.gl for more stability

notahacker 16y ago

A shortened URL is still a link, but the whole idea of a TLDs and text-based rather than numeric URIs is that you should have some idea of where you're being sent: PayPal.com or PhishingSite.com and have some chance of remembering at least enough of the web address to be able to navigate your way to the specific page. I realise this is an ideal that's never been fully realised, but obfuscating evrything with http://bit.ly/unmemorablealphanumericcode http://bit.ly/unmemorablealphanumericcode is definitely a retrogade step.

Skywing 16y ago
Agreed. I wrote an IRC bot that says the html <title> of the page being linked to if it is behind a shortening service. I was surprised by the number of people that actually wanted the bot back whenever I initially disconnected it.
- rakkhi 16y ago
  Sure but these services are hardly new, tinyurl has been around for years and I am not aware of a study linking them to a material increase in phishing. Bottom line with phishing is that people that fall for it are not technical and would click on a link regardless of whether it is short or full. This is also why in the anti-fraud business we don't place much reliance on measures like site to user authentication - they just don't work If you do like to see the full URL try, Chrome muse extension. It can shorten and expand URL's: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/digfdjelalmeldlplgcapchelgnlkomc?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/digfdjelalmeldlp...