I'll be screwed if I ever have to retype the short URL. So no good for printing on packaging.
Why would you rely on any free third-party shortener for print to begin with?
As a flier for an event, yes I would and have.
9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
31–40 of 75 posts
Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#329m.no/鼞ϧ
Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#33Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#34krl.io son son
Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#35While this is pretty neat, is there still a market for URL shorteners? It's been mentioned in this discussion already that Twitter does it automatically already - iirc, that was the main use case for shortened URLs. The other use case is gathering statistics (how many people clicked on my link), but the URL doesn't need to be short for that, a simpler redirect service would work just fine for that.
The final one is simple printable URLs which people can enter easily. That's also a valid use case I think, but mainly if you can create your own URL, i.e. shorturl.com/hackernews; a random collection of numbers and letters is hard to type in on a cell phone and easy to mistype.
Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#36URL shorteners without privacy policy make me feel uncomfortable, but I guess it's understandable in case of a new and tiny project.
Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#37While this is pretty neat, is there still a market for URL shorteners? It's been mentioned in this discussion already that Twitter does it automatically already - iirc, that was the main use case for shortened URLs. The other use case is gathering statistics (how many people clicked on my link), but the URL doesn't need to be short for that, a simpler redirect service would work just fine for that. The final one is s…
Printable URLs are a good use case, but printed material has the annoying characteristic of lasting longer than your average web service, including URL shorteners. For printed stuff QR codes are still the most practical option IMHO.
Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like both you and I agree that it's no good for printing on packaging. I'm unsure why I'm suddenly defending its use.
As I read it, you both agree that it is no good for printing on packaging, for two different reasons. Your original statement, however, gave the unspoken implication that other URL shorteners were good for printing on packaging. It was that unspoken implication that he was talking about, rather than the directly spoken statement.
>> Your original statement, however, gave the unspoken implication that other URL shorteners were good for printing on packaging
That's a very good point. Interestingly, I think this has caught me out in situations previously. My observation was typing non-English characters would be too challenging on the keyboard I use, and as such provided an example where that may be evident.
Having glossed over the other (more important) problem as whether to use a URL shortener was excluded from my assessment (but interpreted as acceptance). Contrary to that, I could decide to use this technique to shorten URLs on my own domain, where the issues I observed would still be valid.
However, I'll throw a counter argument to support using URL shorteners just for the fun of it. I may decide to use it when:
1. There is a service-level-agreement that the service is to be operational for a set period of time (usually tied to a paid-for service). 2. It is akin to me using a phone number redirection service (I pay a top up for the redirection), and as such, have printed this number on business cards. 3. It is akin to putting a Twitter, Facebook or Linked In URL - all services that are free, and as such, have risk associated. 4. It is akin to providing a URL with a domain maintained by a third party country - for example, Libya controlling the .ly domain[1] 5. It may allow me to change the target URL at any time, keeping the content up to date. 6. It may allow me to monitor click through analytics.
But, assuming you only wanted to use it only for online purposes, then you have the following considerations:
1. Users don't know the target of the URL and may reduce trust. I know I've not clicked on shortened URLs of things I am unsure of the target page. 2. What benefit does shortening actually provide? If it's visual real-estate, the link can still be long with a shortened label.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/08/bitly-liby...
Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#39Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
But twitter will only count it as two characters. (I guess.)
Twitter doesn't pay attention to URL length any more. They will force all URLs through t.co even if that makes them longer.
I've found that it doesn't like to shorten certain things, though I haven't quite nailed down what "certain things" are. I tried linking a recent blog post I'd done, which is at least 30 characters (along the lines of http://website/really-neat-post-title), and when I pasted or typed it into the tweet, it wouldn't autoshorten and would consume those characters.
I find myself using goo.gl a distressing amount of time on Twitter.