Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shorter URLs mean fewer characters to encode in a QR code.
And how does that matter? The QR gets read either way.
No, code is smaller and more readable, also shortener means additional tracking layer
Google shifts goo.gl policy: Inactive links deactivated, active links preserved
191–194 of 194 posts
Re: Google shifts goo.gl policy: Inactive links deactivated, active links preserved
#192Re: Google shifts goo.gl policy: Inactive links deactivated, active links preserved
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
One wonders why they don't, instead of showing down, display a 15s interstitial unskippable YouTube-style ad prior to redirecting. That way they'll make money, and they can fund the service not having to shut down, and there isn't any linkrot.
This is such an evil idea.
Well, it's either that or a paywall. Pick your poison.
Re: Google shifts goo.gl policy: Inactive links deactivated, active links preserved
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using a link shortener for any kind of long-term link, no matter who hosts it, has never been a good idea. They're for ephemeral links shared over limited mediums like SMS or where a human would have to manually copy the link from the medium to the browsing device like a TV ad. If you put one in a document intended for digital consumption you've already screwed up.
We knew that. But it is very useful in documents that would be printed, especially if the original url is complicated. That is why one would not use a random url shortener, but Google's. After all, Google would never destroy those URLs, and the company will likely outlive us. I'm completely serious, and I have a PhD thesis with such links to back it up. Just in some foootnotes, but still. Yes, maybe this shows how na…
> We knew that. But it is very useful in documents that would be printed, especially if the original url is complicated.
Maybe for ads in periodicals or other content where accessing the link isn't going to matter down the line, but absolutely not in a document that is expected to be useful years down the line. It's already enough of a problem dealing with link rot without adding another stage of rotting redirections to the mix.
> After all, Google would never destroy those URLs, and the company will likely outlive us.
I will give you that Google URL shortener came out in 2009 and the "Google Graveyard" didn't really pick up speed until 2011 but I feel like any thoughts of "the company will likely outlive us" no matter what company should have been dead after 2008.
> I'm completely serious, and I have a PhD thesis with such links to back it up. Just in some foootnotes, but still. > Yes, maybe this shows how naive we were/I was. But it definitely also shows how deep Google has fallen, that it had so much trust and completely betrayed it.
I would absolutely agree that was a naive choice. A shortened URL could still be useful in a long-lived document as a convenience measure for fitting the link in to a page of content and/or humans copying it to a device, but the full link should then be placed at the end of the chapter or document so it's still discoverable when the shortener eventually disappears.
The only exception I'd be willing to grant is for where the referenced content and the shortened URL are hosted by the same company, for example many programming books have a printed URL at the publisher's site for accessing errata, examples, etc. which is itself a redirect to a deeper link on the publisher's site. In that case those hosting the redirect have an actual interest in the target content being accessible.