Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#31

Post by asdfaoeu »

troels wrote: post #28
warfangle wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want to track clicks on links to URLs that they don't control the content of. Otherwise they'd be using utm_ query parameters and an in-site analytics system. Bitly links in email are super super shady.

Are they though? They could just set up their own redirection service on their own domain - not anything complicated in that. My guess is they use it because it's just a simple way for marketing to add some analytics - that doesn't have to be shady.

That's what parent said. I don't think he is implying it's shady behaviour just that it looks that way. Difference is it hides the real domain from the user and email scanners.

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#32

Post by asdfaoeu »

userbinator wrote: post #29
kuschku wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sadly doesn’t always work. Goo.gl and youtu.be sometimes send an http page consisting of " rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opoDBF_b-fg&feature=youtu.be... Which makes it far more complicated. Another occasion where it’s appropriate to say “Fuck you, Google!” (also fuck you for disabling audio/video control on chrome mobile from JS, EXCEPT for google.com/youtube.com etc)

Perhaps this would be a good time to advocate link shorteners that use the standard HTTP redirect mechanism (bit.ly is one of them), so they can be HEAD'ed, and not some additional layer of obfuscation either via meta-redirect or (even worse) bury the target in some minified and obfuscated JS.

They don't want that because they don't want them to be automatically resolved so they can do metrics which is like 99% of the reason they are used in electronic form.

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#33

Post by kuschku »

warfangle wrote: post #22
kuschku wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sadly doesn’t always work. Goo.gl and youtu.be sometimes send an http page consisting of " rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opoDBF_b-fg&feature=youtu.be... Which makes it far more complicated. Another occasion where it’s appropriate to say “Fuck you, Google!” (also fuck you for disabling audio/video control on chrome mobile from JS, EXCEPT for google.com/youtube.com etc)

Ummm... Html5 audio/video api works just fine on chrome mobile. IOS safari is the bad actor, there ;)

Ummm..., no?

In Chrome mobile you can only do for example .play() on an audio or video element, if you call it from an eventListener that reacted to an onClick event.

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#34

Post by justincormack »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #32
userbinator wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this would be a good time to advocate link shorteners that use the standard HTTP redirect mechanism (bit.ly is one of them), so they can be HEAD'ed, and not some additional layer of obfuscation either via meta-redirect or (even worse) bury the target in some minified and obfuscated JS.

They don't want that because they don't want them to be automatically resolved so they can do metrics which is like 99% of the reason they are used in electronic form.

If they are temporary redirects, so not cached, they can do metrics from the server logs perfectly well.

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#35

Post by kuschku »

userbinator wrote: post #29
kuschku wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sadly doesn’t always work. Goo.gl and youtu.be sometimes send an http page consisting of " rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opoDBF_b-fg&feature=youtu.be... Which makes it far more complicated. Another occasion where it’s appropriate to say “Fuck you, Google!” (also fuck you for disabling audio/video control on chrome mobile from JS, EXCEPT for google.com/youtube.com etc)

Perhaps this would be a good time to advocate link shorteners that use the standard HTTP redirect mechanism (bit.ly is one of them), so they can be HEAD'ed, and not some additional layer of obfuscation either via meta-redirect or (even worse) bury the target in some minified and obfuscated JS.

I have an IRCbot that is supposed to resolve URLs and find out if they ever end up on YouTube, and then post the video title, length and viewcount.

It was an extreme hassle to implement all of this, I am partially parsing JS and the DOM just to get all those redirect services to work. It’s a huge hacky mess, but the only fast working solution.

And, for the fifth time today, I can sincerely say “Fuck you, Google!”

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#36

Post by petercooper »

tux3 wrote: post #26
petercooper wrote: post #4

Google is definitely not a fan. I send a lot of email each month (it's my business) and having bit.ly links in mail is a fast track to Gmail's spam folder or, in some cases, being rejected entirely. (Note: I'm talking bulk mail, not personal mail.)

If you're sending spam, it's only appropriate that it goes in the spam folder. It seems to me that google is doing a good job, here.

If someone's sending spam, sure. I didn't say a single thing about sending spam, however. I send mail to 200,000 subscribers who double opted in and want to receive the mail :-)

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#37

Post by petercooper »

eps wrote: post #6
petercooper wrote: post #4

Google is definitely not a fan. I send a lot of email each month (it's my business) and having bit.ly links in mail is a fast track to Gmail's spam folder or, in some cases, being rejected entirely. (Note: I'm talking bulk mail, not personal mail.)

I hate getting emails with proxied links, bit.ly included, because it's an in-your-face "I want to track you" statement. Never open them and unsubscribe after a couple of strikes. Your audience may be different, but I can't say I disagree with Google junk'ing your emails.

They're not junking my mails anymore because I'm not stupid enough to include bit.ly links ;-) However, clicks are still tracked in the majority of non-personal email nowadays, mostly using the click tracking provided by the large mail service providers, it's just not bit.ly.

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#38

Post by petercooper »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #10
petercooper wrote: post #4

Google is definitely not a fan. I send a lot of email each month (it's my business) and having bit.ly links in mail is a fast track to Gmail's spam folder or, in some cases, being rejected entirely. (Note: I'm talking bulk mail, not personal mail.)

Why would you use bit.ly links in email?

The sibling replies are mostly a load of bollocks. E-mail based publishers track clicks anyway through much better means, such as Mailchimp's click tracking - no reputable sender needs to use bit.ly to track stuff.

The reason bit.ly links can end up in mails is if third parties want to track clicks separate from the sender and the sender isn't smart enough to catch it. For example, people who want to include a job listing or some sort of sponsorship or advert in your mail. They'll often use bit.ly, simply because it works fine on Twitter, without realizing it's not a great idea in mail.

Re: Google Warns: bit.ly Links Are Unsafe

#40

Post by leephillips »

petercooper wrote: post #38
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you use bit.ly links in email?

The sibling replies are mostly a load of bollocks. E-mail based publishers track clicks anyway through much better means, such as Mailchimp's click tracking - no reputable sender needs to use bit.ly to track stuff. The reason bit.ly links can end up in mails is if third parties want to track clicks separate from the sender and the sender isn't smart enough to catch it. For example, people who want to include a job li…

Above you said that you didn't sent spam because your recipients opted in. OK. Now you say that these email newsletters contain third-party advertising. You're sending paid advertising in an email. I would consider that to be spam, even if I opted in to your newsletter. I accept the fact that not everyone would define it that way, but I hope you see my point.
Post reply on HN