Google creates a URL shortener, but it's limited

[zridling]

Google has launched a URL Shortener (http://goo.gl/), but only through Google Toolbar and Feedburner. It "is not a stand-alone service; you can't use it to shorten links directly."



Looks like I'll keep using bit.ly, which has always worked well for social media if yours does not include the service automatically.

[zridling]

And not 24 hours later, bit.ly announces a Pro URL shortening service:

This private label pro solution is initially open for a limited number of medium to large publishers and bloggers including MSN, The Huffington Post and WSJ.com. The private label solution is aimed at boosting user confidence, with the ultimate destination of a short url which in turn should boost the click rate of the url. So if you click on a nyti.ms link you know it will be going to the New York Times.

[Tuxman]

Now who needs that?

[zridling]

Few need it. The only slight advantage would be your own abbreviated business URL. But I've heard more than a few claim that since bit.ly-type links are not transparent, you don't know where it's redirecting you, thus leading you into phishing traps, scams, unwanted porn sites, etc. For SMS-length messager services like twitter, it's almost an absolute must, though.

[f0dder]

For SMS-length messager services like twitter, it's almost an absolute must, though.

-zridling (December 17, 2009, 12:36 PM)

Just say no to that kind of brainrot

[Lashiec]

Why can't Twitter and any other service using URL shorteners switch to something more sensible like, you know, those fancy brand new hyperlinks? Just saying

[Deozaan]

For SMS-length messager services like twitter, it's almost an absolute must, though.

-zridling (December 17, 2009, 12:36 PM)

That's what Long URL Please is for.

Replaces short urls with the originals so you can see where links actually link to.

[f0dder]

Why can't Twitter and any other service using URL shorteners switch to something more sensible like, you know, those fancy brand new hyperlinks? Just saying

-Lashiec (December 17, 2009, 07:03 PM)

Because, in fairness, that makes the actual message longer than those ~160 characters. Dunno whether any device using Twitter is actually limited to a single SMS-length message, though

[Lashiec]

Because, in fairness, that makes the actual message longer than those ~160 characters. Dunno whether any device using Twitter is actually limited to a single SMS-length message, though

-f0dder (December 18, 2009, 07:44 AM)

No, that's what not I meant

I don't use Twitter, so maybe you can already do it, but AFAIK the only way to include links in your tweet is doing something like this:
 

• Check out Cody's brand new hat!!!: https://www.donationcoder.com/

But why didn't they do things like they're usually done in the rest of the Interwebs from the start?
 

• Check out Cody's brand new hat!!!

Yes, you may end up sending text longer than 160 characters, but the actual tweet is shorter.

[f0dder]

Yes, you may end up sending text longer than 160 characters, but the actual tweet is shorter.

-Lashiec (December 18, 2009, 09:23 AM)

The length of the text the receivers read will only end up being those ~160 characters, yes, but I thought the point of twitter was that the entire message should only be ~sms-length?

[Lashiec]

The length of the text the receivers read will only end up being those ~160 characters, yes, but I thought the point of twitter was that the entire message should only be ~sms-length?

-f0dder (December 18, 2009, 09:26 AM)

Yes, but why shifting the burden of relating short URLs and actual URLs to third parties when you can do everything in-house, using standard schemes? Internally you may end up having 1400 characters in a message, but as long as the tweet is within those 140 characters (not 160 it seems), I don't see any problem. As I said, that's how things are done everywhere everyday.

Besides, users are being told not to click on a link someone sends them if it appears to be suspicious. And now we have these URL shorteners that totally obscure the target to the point that no one can say what lies behind (extensions aside)?