3 ms·
They are also useful for reducing SMS cost EDIT: also for vanity "rememberable" urls
by JamesSwift 5y ago
They are also useful for reducing SMS cost
EDIT: also for vanity "rememberable" urls
- lekevicius 5y agoI have nothing against "owned" short URLs, without external dependencies. But for "vanity", the best vanity URL is a domain name. Buy it, own it.
- JamesSwift 5y agoThe vanity part is not the domain, its the path. foo.com/sites/blog/signup-for-my-conference-2022-seo-friendly-url vs shortenedurl.com/conf-2022
- mygo 5y agoDNS solved vanity memorable URLs, and continues to do so if someone is not looking for a .com URL shorteners offering vanity urls solved people not needing to deal with the hassle of purchasing a vanity domain via a registrar, setting up DNS records, and waiting for propagation.
- JamesSwift 5y agoAre you suggesting that instead of short.com/foo you register foo.mydomain.com and setup a reverse proxy to redirect? Isnt that just a url shortener with more steps? Why wouldn't I just setup my own shortener service instead and send a `POST` request when I want a new url?
- mygo 4y ago> Isnt that just a url shortener with more steps? URL shorteners came later, and solved the problem of people needing to deal with “more steps” in order to have short memorable urls. Achieving memorable urls in “less steps” is one of the major selling points of url shorteners. However, url shorteners did not solve short memorable urls — DNS had already solved that. But, as you’ve pointed out, acquiring a domain and setting up DNS records takes more work than simply using a url shortener service.