

Is URL shortening bad for the web? - Skywing

I see more and more sites doing the URL shortening services. They're pretty popular because of things like Twitter, text messaging, etc. But, is this good for the internet? Most of the shortening services are not content-aware; the URLs are just obfuscated and as short as possible. Just wanted to see what everyone thinks about these services and how they'll change the way we link to thinks.
======
petervandijck
If you believe that a) links are good for the web, and b) everything
disappears at some point, then link shortening services are bad for the web.

A shortened link will disappear when (not if) the shortening service
disappears. If that is sooner than the site it was linking to disappeared,
then it's a net negative for the web.

Link shortening services for the domain they live on are slightly less bad,
since their lifespan is somewhat more likely to be equal to that of the
destinations of the links (although it's still likely they'll live shorter).

~~~
Skywing
I didn't even think about that aspect. That makes them seem even worse than I
had really thought.

------
zachallaun
While another comment argued otherwise, I would claim that link shortening
could be considered worthwhile DUE to the analytic features available, at
least from the perspective of the poster.

That's ultimately what the argument comes down to: perspective. From the
perspective of the poster, link shortening allows for a larger dissemination
coupled with analytics. From the perspective of the web, link shortening
creates a problem for the future (as they begin to break).

~~~
rakkhi
I actually agreed the analytics were good :) just that many would argue from a
privacy perspective

------
rakkhi
I don't really see how they are bad for the web, a shortened link is still a
link, reading Tim-bernes Lee today (<http://bit.ly/dhfd2S>) he emphasized the
importance of links and links from anywhere to anywhere rather than walled
gardens like Facebook or iTunes. In fact increasing amount of internet
connectivity is on mobile devices and with the smaller space and harder to use
keyboard shorter links are essential. As you say it would be imposibble to use
a service like twitter to its full effect without link shortening.

One downside could be the extra tracking and analytics URL shortening services
provide, and people could see this as an invasion of their privacy. Personal
belief is that there is so much tracking in the form of web analytics that
goes on on the internet anyway that URL shortening is hardly making a
difference. It has also provided some businesses like bit.ly with a way of
generating revenue and creating jobs and for bloggers and people like me who
do like to share what I find interesting on Twitter or Facebook with a way of
seeing if anyone is actually reading what I have shared

~~~
alanstorm
They're usually considered bad for the web because, if the shortening service
goes away any hyperlink that used the shortener instantly breaks.

Dead links are a fact of life on the web, but it's the idea that one domain-
name going away would break links to thousands of different domains that
unsettles people.

~~~
rakkhi
Fair point, but is this not just a reason for sites to register their own URL
shortener? e.g. if you shorten something from techcrunch or read write web it
shortens to their domain rather than bit.ly etc. Alternative is to also use
goo.gl for more stability

------
dstein
It's another example of artificial scarcity, a phenomenon that is prevalent in
many aspects of our society. Twitter and mobile carriers have gone to great
lengths and scales to artificially inflate the value of a byte of data.

~~~
tgrass
The economist in me loves this explanation. Any articles on it?

~~~
dstein
No, it's my personal interpretation of the demand for short URLs. But there
were lots of articles when they started jacking the prices of SMS:
<http://gthing.net/the-true-price-of-sms-messages>

Twitter is basically the same idea but applied to blog posts, and that is what
created the market for short URLs.

------
drallison
URL shortening is just a pun. The web is unchanged except that certain long
URLs can be referenced with a shortened, more compact name. The longer,
cumbersome name is still there. Guessing long and complex URLs is not a common
modality of use for the web. Search and links rule.

The persistence issue is a big more complex since the validity of a link
depends upon a third party. Shortened links are ephemeral like everything else
on the web and may not always be a good choice.

------
iworkforthem
I find these services appropriate only if;

\- Used in a web app to share a link, or to brand the shareable link. i.e.
shareable URL for each email newsletter promotion.

\- Able to gather stats like a statcounter, who are the referrer, browsers,
keywords, etc.

