41–50 of 91 posts
Wouldn't it be quite easy for a link shortener to find the final target url and just point to that instead of pointing to another shortener url? It could even heuristically try to search further if the pointed to url looks like an already shortened one (i.e. it's shorter than a treshold).
Another evil that roams interwebs are "farewell" gates for outgoing links; eg dA [1]. Unlike URL shorteners which could be in rare cases useful [2] I see not a single benefit of this. [1] http://www.deviantart.com/users/outgoing?http://www.devianta... [2] http://tinyurl.com/selfcontained-editable-datauri (yes, this one is a misuse, but whatewer)
- short link that is easier to share/doesn't break in the process (when you send it via email, need to copy-paste on your mobile or just want a cleaner FB message
- tracking that will give the poster insight on the number of clicks and other performance indicators of the message
No one in their right mind would use 302 redirect, because you then loose things like Twitter share counts, or card implementation.
There is an odd case of someone using the shortener for marketing purposes (I do it for my product), but it usually will be a by-product of something deeper that offers value to the user. And, as many of those services are free (as your referred Pocket), it's a small price to pay for an otherwise great product IMO.
It is true at least for me. I never click on a shortened URL, whatever it might be... I tend not to trust it.
Why do you need to trust a website before clicking the link? If your computer has some vulnerability to virus/hack just by visiting a website then you need to upgrade!
[1] http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/antivirus-is-dead-long-li...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please explain your "typeable" concern. I've been using IRC since the dawn of time and I could always copy and paste. Not to mention that links are recognized and you can click them.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you're a Windows or Mac user.
> t.co -> j.mp -> pocket.co -> getpocket.com -> bit.ly -> $PROPER_URL Wow, so many different people tracking a single link. These are super annoying once they changed to storing the actual URL on the server. The old "redirect?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com" style could be re-written on the client to remove the click-tracking, but by storing it on the server, you have to be tracked to get the URL. These seriously nee…
It seems really strange that the person would use this many link shortners, are you sure it wasn't a malicious link? Back when I used to clickjack we used to mask our website by using multiple link shortners and other tricks to hide the website from Twitters automated checker.
> t.co -> j.mp -> pocket.co -> getpocket.com -> bit.ly -> $PROPER_URL Wow, so many different people tracking a single link. These are super annoying once they changed to storing the actual URL on the server. The old "redirect?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.example.com" style could be re-written on the client to remove the click-tracking, but by storing it on the server, you have to be tracked to get the URL. These seriously nee…
It seems really strange that the person would use this many link shortners, are you sure it wasn't a malicious link? Back when I used to clickjack we used to mask our website by using multiple link shortners and other tricks to hide the website from Twitters automated checker.
Why doesn't t.co (and, in fact, any URL shortener) follow the redirect chain first, before shortening the URL?
Every URL shortener should follow redirect chain before shortening.
Why doesn't t.co (and, in fact, any URL shortener) follow the redirect chain first, before shortening the URL?
Why doesn't t.co (and, in fact, any URL shortener) follow the redirect chain first, before shortening the URL?
This is the quickest route to solving the problem halfway and it's better than the crappy status of URL shorteners today. Every URL shortener should follow redirect chain before shortening.