8 ms·
The fascination with url shorteners is really worrying and useless. Can we get past this fad?
by bumblebird 17y ago
The fascination with url shorteners is really worrying and useless. Can we get past this fad?
- furyg3 17y agoIndeed. They're a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
- david927 17y agoAnd a problem to a solution that does.
- catone 17y agoI disagree with that statement. Even before the rise of microblogging, URL shorteners were helpful in certain situations. Which URL would you rather paste in an email for readability's sake: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Oak+Green+Way,+Tampa,+Hillsborough,+Florida+33611&daddr=Smith+Pl,+Cheyenne,+WY+82009&hl=en&geocode=FZJtqQEdxTEV-ympXLQz69zCiDHqS10ETBtlnA%3BFZ89dAIdGE7B-SkH3oAMlztvhzEnHIxvn-l-zg&mra=pe&mrcr=0&sll=34.526616,-93.626595&sspn=19.931717,39.331055&ie=UTF8&ll=34.560859,-93.427734&spn=19.923224,39.331055&t=h&z=5 http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Oak... or http://tr.im/Gw8B http://tr.im/Gw8B In context, the recipient should have no problem anticipating the URL's end point (i.e., you probably just wrote something like, "here are some directions to my house:"), but using the shortened URL makes the email much more readable and prevents any potential screwy scrolling issues that might be caused by an ultra unwieldy URL borking their email software. That's just one non-microblogging use case for one site that spits out very long dynamic URLs -- there are many use cases for many sites. TinyURL, et. al. certainly did (and continue to) solve a problem, imho. And they've become even more useful for microblogging sites like Twitter, on which character limit constraints (which essentially defines that type of service) require that URLs be shortened. [EDIT: I know HN auto truncated that Google Maps URL, but it is a 355 characters long -- and most email software (my use case) wouldn't auto truncate the URL in the same way. So readability would be negatively affected for the recipient by using the long URL instead of the short one.]
- dkersten 17y agoThe former. It shows the reader not only where I'm sending them, but even gives them an idea of what to expect, not to mention the whole dead links problem that will inevitably occur when these sights finally go down. What I would normally do is something like this "<loads of text> Check out my map here [1] <more text>" and at the end put "[1] http...", that way a giant ten page url doesn't interfere with the message, yet I don't have to shorten it either. If I think the precipitant won't understand what I mean, I'd put more details in, eg [1 below] The ONLY place where I'd consider using a url shortener is printed material, since its easier to type in by hand than a giant url, but this has the same dead link problem, especially if printed in magazines.
- catone 17y agoI like your footnote idea, though I think it seems fairly unnatural for casual communication. To me, short URLs seem like the more user-friendly solution. I'm also still not sold on the dead link problem for two reasons. 1. You're already relying on one site (in this case Google) not to go down or change its dynamic URL patterns. Certainly adding another layer increases the chances of a dead link, but any time you link to something on the web you're taking a risk of sending someone to an error page. 2. Most instances in which you'd use a short URL -- such as email -- are for instant communication in which the recipient is likely to visit that link in the next day or two. In other words, you wouldn't link to a short URL in the body of your web page or blog (something with more permanence on which you want to be sure the link works months or even years from now), but for email or Twitter messages, which are generally fleeting and timely, that matters less. As long as the link works right now then all is good. If the person visiting the links wants to save it for later, they'll more than likely bookmark it, cutting the shortener out of the loop anyway.
- dkersten 17y agoSure, but it doesn't change the "Oh, some random site, I have to click on it to see what it is" vs "oh, its google maps, and I can also see the street in the url, i'll save that for later" loss of information in shortened urls. I dunno, you can use url shorteners if you want, but Im not convinced of their usefulness, thats all.
- anigbrowl 17y agoa solution to a problem that doesn't exist I do not use them, but long URLs are a pain in many contexts, and it's not always possible to [link]wrap a tag around it[/link]. Server > client communication has gotten incredibly flexible, but client > server or client > peer communication is still mostly text-driven, and many URLs are not text-friendly or human-friendly. The widespread use of these shorteners strongly argues that they do solve a problem, just not one that matters to you as a programmer.
- dzohrob 17y agoIf the problem doesn't exist, why do so many people find them useful?
- comster 17y agodeath to tiny urls! I want context back!
- Pistos2 17y agoI was against shorteners for a long while, but you can't argue against the fact that it lets you fit more in your message when you have a character limit to deal with, such as with Twitter, identica, FriendFeed, etc. I try to restrict my use of shorteners to microblogging. When following shortened links, I just use common sense and take into account how much I trust the source of the shortened URL. In practice, this has worked very well for me.
- sili 17y agoWhat if Tweeter and other places that have message length limit ignore the length of the URL in you post?
- jiaaro 17y agoThey can't do that due to text-message length restrictions
- slig 17y agoThey should have their own url shortner.
- stuartjmoore 17y agoEvery major website should have their own URL shorter. People would be more willing and trusting to click a random link found on Twitter if it's from Gizmodo's short URL rather than bit.ly. Then again, people shouldn't click random links.
- thom 17y agoThe stats that you can get out of something like bit.ly are quite useful. Or at least ego-strokingly hypnotic.
- bumblebird 17y agoI'd say they were largely unuseful and inaccurate :/
- windsurfer 17y agoI use an extension, like many others, that automatically "follows" every url shortener url on a page. Your stats are likely skewed.