5 ms·

I'm not arguing that URL shorteners came first, but rather that their widespread use is what has enabled this kind of URL crapification to become so pervasive.

I'm not arguing that URL shorteners came first, but rather that their widespread use is what has enabled this kind of URL crapification to become so pervasive. [Disclosure: I hope your entire product category dies]

seldo 15y ago
Wow. That's a little rude. I'm arguing that URL shorteners have had nothing to do with the popularity of Google Analytics, which is the source of urchin parameters. The dominance of Google and the massive profit incentive around accurately tracking adwords and adsense is what's driving that. Consumers don't care what their URLs look like, so it doesn't matter whether URL shorteners obfuscate them. I recognize that shortened URLs are troublesome for a bookmarking service, but they are hardly insurmountable. I'm not sure I understand why you'd have so much hate for us. (And for the record, URL shortening is not our primary product)
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  What he's saying is that, because url shorteners hide the Urchin crap, it has allowed it to become more pervasive, since most people don't see the Urchin crap until it's hidden far to the right in the browser.
  - mattmcknight 15y ago
    Couldn't you say the same thing about an ordinary hyperlink on a page? I see the text of the link and even less of the URL than you see in the address bar in the 64 char preview at the bottom of the browser when I hover. It's only a very small percentage of the population that copies the destination URL and strips out unnecessary query parameters. The URL shorteners just an inferior version of regular anchor tags...
- sbierwagen 15y ago
  Shortened URLs are also troublesome for anyone who likes clicking on links, due to the propensity for URL shorteners to run out of money and die, breaking tens of thousands of links.
eropple 15y ago
Welp, now I know another service not to use. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
- danparsonson 15y ago
  Why? Because he doesn't like URL shorteners?
  - cstross 15y ago
    No; because he seems to be convinced that the advertising-funded revenue model is the only viable source of funding for content providers. I can think of quite a few other support frameworks for content creators -- some within the capitalist system, some outside it. (My take is that almost all advertising sucks, from a consumer point of view, because it's designed to steal the consumer's attention from the item that drew it in the first place. At its worst, it becomes as unwelcome as spam. After all, we've only got 168 hours in any given week to pay attention to stuff: ads steal the only thing from us that money can't buy, and that's time.)
    - dorian-graph 15y ago
      Would you mind linking to some resources about alternative revenue models? I've never been a fan of ads and I'n curious as to other viable alternatives.
      - mdaniel 15y ago
        I pay via Readability and ( while I'm no expert) I think that is a good balance between the content producers need to feed their kids and my aversion to irrelevant ads.
    - sbierwagen 15y ago
      Might want to change that to "he (eropple)" there. I started typing out an enraged response here before I figured out that you were talking about him, not idlewords.
falava 15y ago
Content creators need analytics and that is not going to die. I saw URL shorteners first in a paper magazine, the articles about Internet provided the links in that format (tinyurl.com), much easier to write in a computer keyboard.
theaeolist 15y ago
Yes, we just want free content, no strings attached. There must be no way anyone could ever benefit even from distributing free stuff, because that's how entitled we are.
- dkarl 15y ago
  We pay for content one way or another. At this point money would be the least painful of alternatives, if only it were an alternative.
  - relix 15y ago
    If only more people were willing. I'm 100% positive that most current ad-based free content providers would like nothing more than to charge for their content and get rid of the ads.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

seldo 15y ago

Wow. That's a little rude. I'm arguing that URL shorteners have had nothing to do with the popularity of Google Analytics, which is the source of urchin parameters. The dominance of Google and the massive profit incentive around accurately tracking adwords and adsense is what's driving that. Consumers don't care what their URLs look like, so it doesn't matter whether URL shorteners obfuscate them. I recognize that shortened URLs are troublesome for a bookmarking service, but they are hardly insurmountable. I'm not sure I understand why you'd have so much hate for us. (And for the record, URL shortening is not our primary product)

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
What he's saying is that, because url shorteners hide the Urchin crap, it has allowed it to become more pervasive, since most people don't see the Urchin crap until it's hidden far to the right in the browser.
- mattmcknight 15y ago
  Couldn't you say the same thing about an ordinary hyperlink on a page? I see the text of the link and even less of the URL than you see in the address bar in the 64 char preview at the bottom of the browser when I hover. It's only a very small percentage of the population that copies the destination URL and strips out unnecessary query parameters. The URL shorteners just an inferior version of regular anchor tags...
sbierwagen 15y ago
Shortened URLs are also troublesome for anyone who likes clicking on links, due to the propensity for URL shorteners to run out of money and die, breaking tens of thousands of links.

eropple 15y ago

Welp, now I know another service not to use. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

danparsonson 15y ago
Why? Because he doesn't like URL shorteners?
- cstross 15y ago
  No; because he seems to be convinced that the advertising-funded revenue model is the only viable source of funding for content providers. I can think of quite a few other support frameworks for content creators -- some within the capitalist system, some outside it. (My take is that almost all advertising sucks, from a consumer point of view, because it's designed to steal the consumer's attention from the item that drew it in the first place. At its worst, it becomes as unwelcome as spam. After all, we've only got 168 hours in any given week to pay attention to stuff: ads steal the only thing from us that money can't buy, and that's time.)
  - dorian-graph 15y ago
    Would you mind linking to some resources about alternative revenue models? I've never been a fan of ads and I'n curious as to other viable alternatives.
    - mdaniel 15y ago
      I pay via Readability and ( while I'm no expert) I think that is a good balance between the content producers need to feed their kids and my aversion to irrelevant ads.
  - sbierwagen 15y ago
    Might want to change that to "he (eropple)" there. I started typing out an enraged response here before I figured out that you were talking about him, not idlewords.

falava 15y ago

Content creators need analytics and that is not going to die. I saw URL shorteners first in a paper magazine, the articles about Internet provided the links in that format (tinyurl.com), much easier to write in a computer keyboard.

theaeolist 15y ago

Yes, we just want free content, no strings attached. There must be no way anyone could ever benefit even from distributing free stuff, because that's how entitled we are.

dkarl 15y ago
We pay for content one way or another. At this point money would be the least painful of alternatives, if only it were an alternative.
- relix 15y ago
  If only more people were willing. I'm 100% positive that most current ad-based free content providers would like nothing more than to charge for their content and get rid of the ads.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]