Down with URL shorteners
jacquesmattheij.com
jacquesmattheij.com
It's called LinkPeelr, and you can check it out here: http://linkpeelr.appspot.com
They aren't the shortest possible URLs, but they clearly show the content provider in the URL, which is great.
I actually created a web app and API (hosted on Google App Engine) to generate these publisher-provided short URLs, but never published it. I'll polish it off a bit tonight and post it here.
[1] This is my personal ideal. Being provided by the content publisher should be enough, in my opinion.
What does your article add to this discussion, Jacques? I mean, besides points to your karma score? ;)
http://joshua.schachter.org/2009/04/on-url-shorteners.html
Yes, there is definitely a concerted effort to get rid of URL shorteners.
It's one step away from banning *.ly as a referrer ;)
(thanks for the mention, tptacek)
And as for me being so active on HN, there are lots of things I read here but not everything, the volume is just way too large for that, and besides my memory is good but not perfect.
It seemed to me that it was possible for website owners to take a more pro-active stance against url shorteners, hence the piece.
On websites URL shorteners don't make any sense anyway (other than click tracking, I completely missed that possibility).
Actually, while that is their primary purpose, they are very attractive to the people who use them because they give you a click tracking on your instance of the URL post, regardless of who owns the target website.
For me, this is actually another negative of the whole concept of URL shorteners. But it's a huge draw for the people using them.
Only issue is with the CMS urls. I think it should be made 'best practice' rather than just 'SEO optimization', to use URL rewriting by CMS developers.