Comments on: URL Shorteners List and Why It’s a Mistake for Twitter

By: Tricia

Tricia — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:15:59 +0000

I like your idea re URL shortening – just replacing with “Link” or similar. I hate not knowing where a link is going to take me. So how do we get twitter to change?

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:51:19 +0000

Not a heavy Twitter user (yet), but goto.st is short fast and easy to use. Thanks. If I have any feedback I will certainly pass it along, meanwhile the simplicity is its strength.

By: fab

fab — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:19:54 +0000

Why is it a bad thing? It’s the best way to fit those 141 character links into a 140 limit. Seriously, don’t complain about the little things, sure twitter should have one themselves, but for now, it’s the best way.

By: haqu

haqu — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:17:58 +0000

After trying to use several popular URL shorteners, I decided to make my own. It is fast and clean, with simple stats.

http://go2.st

Feel free to suggest new features and improvements (twitter: @haqu)

By: JP

JP — Sat, 30 May 2009 13:07:41 +0000

I don’t want Twitter changing my use of the 140 characters. If I have a link that is too long, I will shorten it. If I have a branded URL to include, though, I don’t want to lose that branding as a result of Twitter replacing the URL with a generic-looking shortened URL.

By: JunAtWork

JunAtWork — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:30:10 +0000

Twitter shouldn’t attempt to shorten URLs for its users at all. It’s users’ decision as how they would use the 240-character space, and they don’t need someone trying to play smart to change it (and actually might be a dumb decision).

For some users, the URL presents something to readers as well as other parts of the message. I wouldn’t expect someone to change my message from “I’m furious” to “I’m mad”.

It’s simply manipulating users’ message without asking and a betray to users’ trust. If this continues, I’ll simply stopping going there.

By: Randall Krause

Randall Krause — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:14:54 +0000

Also, I should add that another reason my proposal above is the ideal solution over URL shorteners, is because it gives end-user the ability to examine each link beforehand (hovering reveals the actual URL in the status bar) before clicking it. This keeps the user both in-control and informed, which is the way the Web should work. Hiding information is poor design practice, and does not promote a security and safety conscious online community.

The alternative is to use the “msplinks” strategy, taking users to an interstitial page warning them about the dangers of following exernal links.

By: Randall Krause

Randall Krause — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:09:42 +0000

I agree, Twitter should not be automatically converting links to any intermediate sites (except those under the control of Twitter). From a legal standpoint, I would imagine there would even be some liability issues.

Technically speaking, there isn’t even a need for URL shortening. Just replace the displayed URL with some generic inline text or a graphic such as “[Link]” and count it as a specific number of letters. Although the reader will not see the URL in the tweet, the HREF attribute will still operate accordingly.

Simple solutions are best.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:46:17 +0000

You should look in to http://1url.com

They have a pretty cool Twitter bookmarklet. They’re also the shortest “.com” service out there (that I’m aware of at least, and I’ve searched through MANY services).

By: Shorten This

Shorten This — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Because it’s mine, everyone should use http://lilurl.us

It’s been around forever, it’s free, there’s stats, you can choose a URL if it’s available, etc. etc. etc.

That being said, and even with me being a saint, Twitter should definitely do it themselves. It takes no time, and next to no smarts, to make a ahortening service. The code is everywhere.

By: MichaelDotNet

MichaelDotNet — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

My tUrl is free and open. As it says on the page:

T url was created as a GPL’d version of TinyURL.

So they could just use the software and host it internally if they wanted.

By: markus

markus — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I completely agree – why would they make themselves so vulnerable when the technology to create their own version takes about 5 minutes to setup.

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Dan twitter has a 140 character limit and shortening web address saves space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TinyURL

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

sounds like a nice fit for one of my projects Allen, Its not up yet but is a web site/web service for short urls called links.im

I really don’t know why they just don’t build it themselves as it took me 5 mins to know it up in Rails.

By: Dan Schawbel

Dan Schawbel — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I’m not into this short url thing for linking between sites. I am only inclined or pursuaded to acknowledge short url domain names.

What are your reasons for why short url’s for links would be appropriate?