Comments on: Why I’m creating my own URL shortening service http://tom.goskar.com/2009/04/16/why-im-creating-my-own-url-shortening-service/ archaeologist, tech geek, cornishman Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:42:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Taking URL Shortening Further | dv8-designs http://tom.goskar.com/2009/04/16/why-im-creating-my-own-url-shortening-service/comment-page-1/#comment-7960 Taking URL Shortening Further | dv8-designs Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:44:26 +0000 http://tom.goskar.com/?p=221#comment-7960 [...] some of those problems, but the issue of URL shortening service longevity is still a concern, with shortened URLs in printed publications and not just tweets or [...] [...] some of those problems, but the issue of URL shortening service longevity is still a concern, with shortened URLs in printed publications and not just tweets or [...]

]]> By: Jeremy Ottevanger http://tom.goskar.com/2009/04/16/why-im-creating-my-own-url-shortening-service/comment-page-1/#comment-7912 Jeremy Ottevanger Sun, 17 May 2009 16:20:59 +0000 http://tom.goskar.com/?p=221#comment-7912 Hi Tom. Only just found your personal blog, amazingly, and I was interested to read this. I tweeted the other day to ask if anyone knew of a URL shortening service that could pass through parameters and, having had no replies, thought I'd write my own but I hadn't got around to seeing if there was any nickable code out there. Good to know there is (and thanks to Tiago too for the tip). What codebase are you using, then? In case people wonder, by the way, the point of passing parameters through is that one reason for using an URL shortener is for passing URLs to services like Yahoo! Pipes, Dapper and GMaps, which sometimes choke on complicated URLs (or nested calls to different apps). Being able to squish most of a URL down and tag on a couple of variables at the end could solve this. I realise the audience may be limited though. Hi Tom. Only just found your personal blog, amazingly, and I was interested to read this. I tweeted the other day to ask if anyone knew of a URL shortening service that could pass through parameters and, having had no replies, thought I’d write my own but I hadn’t got around to seeing if there was any nickable code out there. Good to know there is (and thanks to Tiago too for the tip). What codebase are you using, then?
In case people wonder, by the way, the point of passing parameters through is that one reason for using an URL shortener is for passing URLs to services like Yahoo! Pipes, Dapper and GMaps, which sometimes choke on complicated URLs (or nested calls to different apps). Being able to squish most of a URL down and tag on a couple of variables at the end could solve this. I realise the audience may be limited though.

]]> By: Tiago Moreira http://tom.goskar.com/2009/04/16/why-im-creating-my-own-url-shortening-service/comment-page-1/#comment-7794 Tiago Moreira Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:47:34 +0000 http://tom.goskar.com/?p=221#comment-7794 Are URLs getting that long? Or is it because it's just tough to shoehorn a regular URL into a service like Twitter? Looks like the medium is affecting the data, instead of the other way around. For most URLs, I'm sure that people take comfort in looking at the domain of where it's coming from. If somebody says "Check out this YouTube video" and they link something from TinyURL.com then you aren't able to see that it is taking you to YouTube.com and not another website. With the recent surge of URL shortening services, there have been a lot "passthrough" advertising methods. They'll basically piggy-back the URL you want through another service that, say, changes all the advertising on that YouTube page to make themselves money. Or, it could simply be a spam-site that just makes money from you having visited. A worst case scenario is that a service like TinyURL gets hacked, or a backdoor is found, which enables a malicious party to redirect URLs to specific spam sites. This is a very large security concern. Being able to see where a URL takes you (what domain) is important. In the case of British Archaeology, they should know better than to use a third-party site to host their links. Who's to say that they will be around in one year? How about 5? They are not thinking about information preservation. Since you're interested in using your own service Tom, if you have Google Apps on your domain, you can use Google's Short Links product: http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/viewListing?productListingId=5143210+6352879591152674960 An alternate way to deal with these link issues is to create a link index somewhere online which you can publish your links. You can then tag links that you used on Twitter or Facebook or somewhere else by date, and have people find the real URL. Sorry for being so long winded. Are URLs getting that long? Or is it because it’s just tough to shoehorn a regular URL into a service like Twitter? Looks like the medium is affecting the data, instead of the other way around.

For most URLs, I’m sure that people take comfort in looking at the domain of where it’s coming from. If somebody says “Check out this YouTube video” and they link something from TinyURL.com then you aren’t able to see that it is taking you to YouTube.com and not another website. With the recent surge of URL shortening services, there have been a lot “passthrough” advertising methods. They’ll basically piggy-back the URL you want through another service that, say, changes all the advertising on that YouTube page to make themselves money. Or, it could simply be a spam-site that just makes money from you having visited.

A worst case scenario is that a service like TinyURL gets hacked, or a backdoor is found, which enables a malicious party to redirect URLs to specific spam sites. This is a very large security concern. Being able to see where a URL takes you (what domain) is important.

In the case of British Archaeology, they should know better than to use a third-party site to host their links. Who’s to say that they will be around in one year? How about 5? They are not thinking about information preservation.

Since you’re interested in using your own service Tom, if you have Google Apps on your domain, you can use Google’s Short Links product: http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/viewListing?productListingId=5143210+6352879591152674960

An alternate way to deal with these link issues is to create a link index somewhere online which you can publish your links. You can then tag links that you used on Twitter or Facebook or somewhere else by date, and have people find the real URL.

Sorry for being so long winded.

]]> By: Tehmina Goskar http://tom.goskar.com/2009/04/16/why-im-creating-my-own-url-shortening-service/comment-page-1/#comment-7783 Tehmina Goskar Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:45:23 +0000 http://tom.goskar.com/?p=221#comment-7783 That makes much more sense. I had always thought of URL shortening services as providers of transient convenience, i.e. to get across a long URL to someone quickly and easily (and online). However, the point you make about the possibility of dead URLs in the future, especially as print media such as British Archaeology and several newspapers are using them, makes a good point. I must say at this point it irritates me intensely when print media use shortened URLs as there is much to be gleaned from a URL and you have no clue when it is http://tinyurl.com/88dfgh - it also challenges the principles of referencing, but that's a another topic. Now, it might be argued that the short URL in print is no different to one online, i.e. it's only meant to be for the 'there and then' conveyance of a reference or direction towards a website, and that if the original page is gone, what does it matter anyway? A few cursory searches using the search engine SuperMuseum of 2024 might find someone reading a 2003 article what the original author was referencing in any case. Longevity has never sat well with web endeavours, always the point of attrition, but it is this resistance between speed and versatility of access vs. sustainability that makes the good web what it is, and will continue to be. As this is meant to be your contribution to future-proofing this aspect of web communication, as long as you live and the web continues to work roughly in the same way as it does now, do you think the case you make above is enough to change people's (esp Editors') dilettante habits when it comes to their choice of service? That makes much more sense. I had always thought of URL shortening services as providers of transient convenience, i.e. to get across a long URL to someone quickly and easily (and online). However, the point you make about the possibility of dead URLs in the future, especially as print media such as British Archaeology and several newspapers are using them, makes a good point. I must say at this point it irritates me intensely when print media use shortened URLs as there is much to be gleaned from a URL and you have no clue when it is http://tinyurl.com/88dfgh – it also challenges the principles of referencing, but that’s a another topic.

Now, it might be argued that the short URL in print is no different to one online, i.e. it’s only meant to be for the ‘there and then’ conveyance of a reference or direction towards a website, and that if the original page is gone, what does it matter anyway? A few cursory searches using the search engine SuperMuseum of 2024 might find someone reading a 2003 article what the original author was referencing in any case.

Longevity has never sat well with web endeavours, always the point of attrition, but it is this resistance between speed and versatility of access vs. sustainability that makes the good web what it is, and will continue to be.

As this is meant to be your contribution to future-proofing this aspect of web communication, as long as you live and the web continues to work roughly in the same way as it does now, do you think the case you make above is enough to change people’s (esp Editors’) dilettante habits when it comes to their choice of service?

]]>