Is URL shortening bad for the web? | Hacker News Reader

Is URL shortening bad for the web?

9 pointsSkywing15 comments

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.

View on HN

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).

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

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).

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

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

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.

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

A shortened URL is still a link, but the whole idea of a TLDs and text-based rather than numeric URIs is that you should have some idea of where you're being sent: PayPal.com or PhishingSite.com and have some chance of remembering at least enough of the web address to be able to navigate your way to the specific page. I realise this is an ideal that's never been fully realised, but obfuscating evrything with http://bit.ly/unmemorablealphanumericcode is definitely a retrogade step.

Agreed. I wrote an IRC bot that says the html <title> of the page being linked to if it is behind a shortening service. I was surprised by the number of people that actually wanted the bot back whenever I initially disconnected it.

Sure but these services are hardly new, tinyurl has been around for years and I am not aware of a study linking them to a material increase in phishing. Bottom line with phishing is that people that fall for it are not technical and would click on a link regardless of whether it is short or full. This is also why in the anti-fraud business we don't place much reliance on measures like site to user authentication - they just don't work

If you do like to see the full URL try, Chrome muse extension. It can shorten and expand URL's: https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/digfdjelalmeldlp...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com