I could be very wrong, though.
When I see a shortened URL the probabilities of me clicking the link go down to almost zero.
The biggest, outside of twitter, has to be the method of emailing enormous html links to someone. With so many email clients out there, it is a crap shoot to send a link. Personally and professionally bit.ly has really helped out in those cases.
With that in mind, I wonder what impact this announcement has on bit.ly and the other players. Does google provide analytics on their shortened links? What is the value be between the different shorteners now that Google has an offering.
Last I tried, I could send an email formatted in HTML, where:
<a href="http://my.crazy.long.url.gz">See this</a>
All goo.gl URLs and click analytics are public and can be shared by anyone.
I also cringe when I purple text in Comic Sans, as well as other unmentionables.
Yet, when I want to emphasize something, I hate using asterisks. It's not semantically correct, and it looks ugly. And how do you differentiate between underline and italics?
For this reason I support HTML email.
I much prefer plaintext only mails. Not only are they readable on any device, I also don't have to be afraid of getting my machine infected by who-knows-what.
Isn't that what this post is about?
You can also generate QR codes using the Google Charts API.
I understand that you might not like short URLs in the wild (so to speak), but do you really not follow short links when sent to you from friends or relatives? (And, no, I don't mean short URLs from your aunt that sends you all the "funny You Tube" videos.)
 http://metamark.net/ (or http://xrl.us for the short link)
I always use the "embed in angle brackets" trick for that--although I don't know how all mail readers render it:
"The characters '<' and '>' are unsafe because they are used as the delimiters around URLs in free text".
The RFC itself uses "<URL:...>" because it already uses "<...>" for BNF non-terminals, which are much more common than URLs in the RFC.
Enjoy your undeserved upvote :)
even if people don't click through, they see the names. and I'm not too worried about long term stability of the links, since they are only sent out through twitter, which tends to be a rather transient medium anyway.
Q: Why are you doing this?
A: Google needed a url shortener for its own products where we knew the shortener wouldn’t go away. We also wanted a shortener that we knew would do things the right way (e.g. 301/permanent redirects), and that would be fast, stable, and secure.
Not a huge fan of the flash chart though.
EDIT: Better graph
Then I copied the resulting url (http://www.magicbeef.com/)
After pasting it in google service, it produced a different short url: http://goo.gl/YH1c
I first assumed that every destination would render an unique short url, but thats not the case.
This way google knows the full stats of http://www.magicbeef.com/. But you can only know the real stats if you know ALL the short urls pointing to it. :)
EDIT: I my short url stats page theres a notice:
"119 total clicks on all goo.gl short URLs pointing to this long URL"
EDIT: Notice the browser stats of the link (http://goo.gl/info/Jvhu) Almost NO IE. Also less than a half windows.
PS: That means there is still atleast one HNer using internet explorer.
They don't want to allow this, do they?
http://goo.gl/87bM --> http://goo.gl/4P9R
http://goo.gl/4P9R --> http://goo.gl/7W5A
http://goo.gl/7W5A --> http://goo.gl/Wcsa
http://goo.gl/Wcsa --> http://goo.gl/qzcb
http://goo.gl/qzcb --> http://goo.gl/
I can honestly say I hope to never be in a market - or working on a product - where google suddenly decides to enter the game. Even if their offering sucks, or is broken, it sucks all the air out of the room because it's OMG Google.
bit.ly were working on partnerships with publishers as their means of getting some monetization, but that's all I've really seen.
I'd prefer the Google one to the others, because at least I have some guarantee that the Google one won't go away.
From what I could tell from the last emails sent from twitter, they are doing one. I wrote a very short blog-post on that since I was surprised nobody else seemed to notice:
Hopefully the ISP's DNS caches goo.gl and doesn't just send it all to root .gl to handle!
Edit: Ah, its website is just new. Here the original post: http://googlesocialweb.blogspot.com/2010/09/google-url-short...
There was already a Chrome extension since the beginning.
People seem to want click stats though, although i dont see why you cant get these out of google analytics etc.
Check out http://revcanonical.appspot.com/ for more.
Once they hit their limit, do they start erasing the oldest ones? The most inactive ones?
For shorteners that give consistent shortened URLs (i.e. everytime you shorten the same input URL, you get the same shortened output URL), how do they deal with hitting their maximum?
Let's do the math. If we assume that a service only uses a-z, A-Z and 0-9 as characters for the shortened URL, we have a set of 62 characters.
/x -> 62
/xx -> 62^2 = 3,844
/xxx -> 62^3 = 238,328
/xxxx -> 62^4 = 14,776,336
/xxxxx -> 62^5 = 916,132,832
/xxxxxx -> 62^6 = 56,800,235,584
In the worst case scenario, the URL shortener will have to use a 6 character identifier at some point, giving them a complessive coverage of almost 58 billion URLs.
The 4 characters they are currently using will only be enough for a while. They'll switch to 5 soon enough.
Perhaps they have done some testing.
Hmm... are they sequentially used? Bets on how soon?
Immutable - once created by you, no one else can change them
Irrevocable - once created, they do not expire.
I think that most large shorteners don't automatically expire links. It would be pretty miserable if they did.
(numbers + lowercase + upper case)^num of characters
10+26+26 = 62^4 = 14,776,336.
That's a reasonably large number (and then my friend just suggested the adding a character if they start to run out).
One big problem I had with bit.ly on Twitter is there was no way to get all shortened URLs pointing to a "real" URL. This was a problem because I wanted to search for references to the "real" URL.
The lack of that feature of course empowered dedicated services like backtype (I suppose), who have special deals with Twitter so that they can get all references.
JS required! A new google-low and a big disappointment.
... or simply http://goo.gl/5av9 =)
You could turn the entire country into a passively cooled data center!
Instead of a bookmarklet, I prefer to use this Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/iblijlcdoidgdpfk...
A case-insensitive variant is Base36:
I remember you being a Lisp programmer; it's built into CL's Format function:
(format t "~36r" 9999) ==> 7PR