9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age • Hacker News Board

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#41

Post by taf2 » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:18 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #35

While 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…

Yes - for example text message marketing and informational messages that want to include a URL is a growing market.

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#42

Post by riffraff » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:21 PM UTC

pgl wrote: post #30

riffraff wrote: post #6

http://tinyarrows.com/ has existed for years and is actually shorter, i.e. http://➡.ws/鷇

Except you need to pick your own UTF-8 character to make it shorter, which is a pain because a lot of them are already taken.

no you don't, it's just a weird interface. Random UTF8 characters like the above example are generated automatically if you enter a url.

You _can_ input your own to have something like http://✩.ws/awesometastic

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#43

Post by mykhal » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:23 PM UTC

why would anyone in the unicode age have to shorten the urls? (:

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#44

Post by mrtbld » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:35 PM UTC

wcchandler wrote: post #22

jebus989 wrote: post #19

All the usual HN nitpicking and obscure edge case discussion should probably be done in the light of ehamberg's own comment: "This is a horrible idea in many ways and was a quick hack for fun." [0] [0] https://github.com/ehamberg/9m

All these people had to do was click "about" at the bottom and find this nugget from the author: "Made slightly – but not completely – tounge-in-cheek by @ehamberg."

> tounge-in-cheek

“tounge”, typo or some play-on-word I don't understand?

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#45

Post by paulrov » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:36 PM UTC

batuhanicoz wrote: post #12

Short URL's have two purposes for me: - They are easier to spell on the phone (This is not.) - I like to track the clicks (Which I can't do with this.) But, as a proof of concept, this is nice. OT: Oh, I'm turning into a real HNer with this comment.

I find short URLs with mixed case characters worse than a regular URL on mobile

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#46

Post by sspiff » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:37 PM UTC

r0muald wrote: post #37

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #35

While 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.

They also have the annoying characteristic of lasting longer than the content they link to more often than not!

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#47

Post by normloman » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:41 PM UTC

r0muald wrote: post #37

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #35

While 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.

The click through rate on QR codes is terrible. The two biggest mobile OSes don't have a qr reader installed, ordinary people don't know to download the reader and decode them, and even people with QR readers don't bother to open the app when they can just type the address.

Besides, most QR codes just point to a bit.ly URL anyway (It's a cheap way to track QR usage separately from direct traffic).

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#48

Post by uptown » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:45 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #40

pornel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The added benefit of using Google's URL shortener with Twitter is that you can send those links by DM while others are blocked.

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#49

Post by edwintorok » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:46 PM UTC

riffraff wrote: post #6

http://tinyarrows.com/ has existed for years and is actually shorter, i.e. http://➡.ws/鷇

Hmm tinyarrows can link to itself too: http://➡.ws/Z̶̷̡̤̺͎̝͕̺͚̺̖̞̫̘͔̟̈́ͮ̍̃͋̇ͪͨ̎͒͂̍͑̕͡À̿ͣ̓ͩͭ̉ͬ͑̈̀͊́̊...

Re: 9m.no – Short URLs for the Unicode Age

#50

Post by Dolimiter » Thu, May 22, 2014, 1:51 PM UTC

riffraff wrote: post #42

pgl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you need to pick your own UTF-8 character to make it shorter, which is a pain because a lot of them are already taken.

no you don't, it's just a weird interface. Random UTF8 characters like the above example are generated automatically if you enter a url. You _can_ input your own to have something like http://✩.ws/awesometastic

I wouldn't call it a weird interface.

I would call it the one of the most confusing and idiotic interfaces I've used in a while. Or perhaps I'm stupid? That's how the website made me feel.