3 ms·

the fact that they're seeing this page means the shortened is working as intended They won't actually see the page they used the URL shortener to create a link

by pj 17y ago

the fact that they're seeing this page means the shortened is working as intended They won't actually see the page they used the URL shortener to create a link to, because the browser will automatically redirect to another page where you have explained why you are disallowing url shortened links to your content. I also disagree with your premise. I think the reasons I mentioned are significant to all users of the web. I do understand the issue you have presented though, that the short term benefits to the user of using a shortened url, may outweigh the long term ramifications I have listed, but perhaps as a group here, we can come up with some arguments that may help us content producers take back the web from the url shorteners. Really, I just think when taken to the logical conclusion, a web saturated with url shortened links is really a not very good web. I'm trying to propose a solution here, it may not be the best one and it will take a coordinated effort among content producers. I suppose those who ignore the call to arms are going to "please" url shortener users more than those who don't, but with a little effort and a genuine interest in a sustainable web, I think we can win this war.

rex 17y ago
...the browser will automatically redirect to another page where you have explained why you are disallowing url shortened links to your content. If you're going to the trouble of serving up content from your site, why would you disallow the content they came to see anyway? Maybe the concept could work if you had support from higher-up in the redirection process (from url shortening services themselves), but to effectively re-direct from your own page to another "you an't access this content" page on your site will only make end users confused and disinterested, driving traffic away. I agree that URL shorteners are bad and acknowledge you're trying to do something about it, but this isn't the way to solve the problem.
- calambrac 17y ago
  Because it's more important that the shorteners die before they become more entrenched than that I get their traffic. The fact that I can seriously say this right now is something worth fighting to preserve.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    TinyURL has lasted longer than many of the sites its links point to.
    - calambrac 17y ago
      The fact that for however many years TinyURL served a niche purpose hiding goatse links somehow means the recent explosion in the use of these services is positive for the web? And: what good is a shortened link to a dead site?
      - ubernostrum 17y ago
        "And: what good is a shortened link to a dead site?" About as much good as an un-shortened link to a dead site, which is what it turns into after the redirect. I guess my problem here is I still haven't seen an actual argument to back up the sorts of "behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Digg, and Twitter followed with him" hysteria that's been going around. Yeah, sometimes links die of old age; we've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem. And yeah, sometimes people hide nasty things behind redirects; again, we've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem. So what's with the gloom and doom?
        calambrac 17y ago
        About as much good as an un-shortened link to a dead site, which is what it turns into after the redirect. That's exactly my point; you were the one who pointed to TinyURL outlasting some of the sites it stores links to as though that were a good thing. Yeah, sometimes links die of old age; we've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem. Yes, but this introduces another failure mode, where the end target could be fine, but it could be the shortener service that dies. That sure is awesome if it's your content being linked, and you have no way to fix it, huh? At least with regular links, if a link goes dead, it was your own fault, and you can fix it if you want. And yeah, sometimes people hide nasty things behind redirects So why would you want to create more opportunities for this to happen? We've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem But not on the scale that we're starting to see now. You seem to be operating on the premise that things we've seen used in moderation without too much trouble are automatically safe for heavy use, but the Digg thing shows how ripe for abuse these services really are.

by pj 17y ago

rex 17y ago

...the browser will automatically redirect to another page where you have explained why you are disallowing url shortened links to your content. If you're going to the trouble of serving up content from your site, why would you disallow the content they came to see anyway? Maybe the concept could work if you had support from higher-up in the redirection process (from url shortening services themselves), but to effectively re-direct from your own page to another "you an't access this content" page on your site will only make end users confused and disinterested, driving traffic away. I agree that URL shorteners are bad and acknowledge you're trying to do something about it, but this isn't the way to solve the problem.

calambrac 17y ago
Because it's more important that the shorteners die before they become more entrenched than that I get their traffic. The fact that I can seriously say this right now is something worth fighting to preserve.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  TinyURL has lasted longer than many of the sites its links point to.
  - calambrac 17y ago
    The fact that for however many years TinyURL served a niche purpose hiding goatse links somehow means the recent explosion in the use of these services is positive for the web? And: what good is a shortened link to a dead site?
    - ubernostrum 17y ago
      "And: what good is a shortened link to a dead site?" About as much good as an un-shortened link to a dead site, which is what it turns into after the redirect. I guess my problem here is I still haven't seen an actual argument to back up the sorts of "behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Digg, and Twitter followed with him" hysteria that's been going around. Yeah, sometimes links die of old age; we've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem. And yeah, sometimes people hide nasty things behind redirects; again, we've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem. So what's with the gloom and doom?
      - calambrac 17y ago
        About as much good as an un-shortened link to a dead site, which is what it turns into after the redirect. That's exactly my point; you were the one who pointed to TinyURL outlasting some of the sites it stores links to as though that were a good thing. Yeah, sometimes links die of old age; we've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem. Yes, but this introduces another failure mode, where the end target could be fine, but it could be the shortener service that dies. That sure is awesome if it's your content being linked, and you have no way to fix it, huh? At least with regular links, if a link goes dead, it was your own fault, and you can fix it if you want. And yeah, sometimes people hide nasty things behind redirects So why would you want to create more opportunities for this to happen? We've been dealing with that for years and it's not a new or unique problem But not on the scale that we're starting to see now. You seem to be operating on the premise that things we've seen used in moderation without too much trouble are automatically safe for heavy use, but the Digg thing shows how ripe for abuse these services really are.