Comments on: Why URL shorteners suck http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Mon, 20 May 2013 17:35:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Adam Stanhope http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456448 Adam Stanhope Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456448 They certainly serve a purpose - especially for sending links via email. We can put "overhauling the URL shortening universe" on the big list of things to do, but I'm afraid it's not going to get top billing. They certainly serve a purpose – especially for sending links via email.

We can put “overhauling the URL shortening universe” on the big list of things to do, but I’m afraid it’s not going to get top billing.

]]> By: tmccartney http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456451 tmccartney Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456451 Maybe we need a 140-character limit for URLs. :) Seriously, I agree that the problem isn't the shorteners. It's the crazy, random big-ass URLs some sites use. Maybe we need a 140-character limit for URLs. :) Seriously, I agree that the problem isn’t the shorteners. It’s the crazy, random big-ass URLs some sites use.

]]> By: adonai http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456453 adonai Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456453 Eh. Zonealarm blocks tinyurl links for me anyway. I could do something about it, but I honestly don't care - chances are someone is going to use a shortened URL to rickroll me. Eh. Zonealarm blocks tinyurl links for me anyway. I could do something about it, but I honestly don’t care – chances are someone is going to use a shortened URL to rickroll me.

]]> By: EscapingTheTrunk http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456459 EscapingTheTrunk Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456459 Finally, somebody says it. I can't stand shortened URLs. And I think the point here isn't "OMG SPAM!" it's "why depend on a middleman for your URLs?" Finally, somebody says it. I can’t stand shortened URLs. And I think the point here isn’t “OMG SPAM!” it’s “why depend on a middleman for your URLs?”

]]> By: Beanolini http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456465 Beanolini Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456465 #14, EscapingTheTrunk: <blockquote>why depend on a middleman for your URLs? </blockquote> Because without <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_server" rel="nofollow">a middleman </a>, you'll have to remember URLs like this: <a href="http://204.11.50.136/" rel="nofollow">http://204.11.50.136/</a>. #4, AbsoluteDestiny: <blockquote> or even use tinyurl's preview.tinyurl address so you dont go directly to the site. </blockquote> I'm going to repeat this because it's so useful: Turn on the preview at <a href="http://tinyurl.com/preview.php" rel="nofollow">TinyURL's preview page</a>, and you can see each URL before you go to it. #14, EscapingTheTrunk:

why depend on a middleman for your URLs?

Because without a middleman , you’ll have to remember URLs like this:
http://204.11.50.136/.

#4, AbsoluteDestiny:

or even use tinyurl’s preview.tinyurl address so you dont go directly to the site.

I’m going to repeat this because it’s so useful:
Turn on the preview at TinyURL’s preview page, and you can see each URL before you go to it.

]]> By: skullivan http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456722 skullivan Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456722 @dedalus http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+twitter @dedalus

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+twitter

]]> By: dculberson http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456467 dculberson Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456467 Fang Xianfu's got it. If site operators spend five minutes thinking critically about their URL construction, then URL shorteners would not be needed. Take, for example, eBay. A typical eBay item URL <i>used</i> to look like: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280327786032 which is relatively short and works just fine. What they look like now: http://cgi.ebay.com/THE-UNICORNS-ATC-ACEO-ART-CARD-BY-GABRIELLA-BYRNE_W0QQitemZ280327786032QQihZ018QQcategoryZ60436QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem I cannot fathom why eBay thought that was a good idea. You email that to someone and it is *going* to break over a line. No question. If they were smart about the configuration, they could have made only the first 70 characters significant so the URL would still work if chopped up. But instead if you click on a cut-off URL, you get nothing. eBay is just one particular example - talking out of my ass, I would say that the majority of large companies just don't get it when it comes to URL length and construction. Fang Xianfu’s got it. If site operators spend five minutes thinking critically about their URL construction, then URL shorteners would not be needed. Take, for example, eBay. A typical eBay item URL used to look like:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280327786032

which is relatively short and works just fine. What they look like now:

http://cgi.ebay.com/THE-UNICORNS-ATC-ACEO-ART-CARD-BY-GABRIELLA-BYRNE_W0QQitemZ280327786032QQihZ018QQcategoryZ60436QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

I cannot fathom why eBay thought that was a good idea. You email that to someone and it is *going* to break over a line. No question. If they were smart about the configuration, they could have made only the first 70 characters significant so the URL would still work if chopped up. But instead if you click on a cut-off URL, you get nothing.

eBay is just one particular example – talking out of my ass, I would say that the majority of large companies just don’t get it when it comes to URL length and construction.

]]> By: Rob http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456470 Rob Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456470 @#14: From the standard: "The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs." I work on a product that has an 8K limit for URLs. Some customers have had problems. @#14:

From the standard:

“The HTTP protocol does not place any a priori limit on the length of a URI. Servers MUST be able to handle the URI of any resource they serve, and SHOULD be able to handle URIs of unbounded length if they provide GET-based forms that could generate such URIs.”

I work on a product that has an 8K limit for URLs. Some customers have had problems.

]]> By: SharpieSniffer http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456473 SharpieSniffer Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456473 I use tinyurl to send my mother links to things because I have to email them. If the link wraps and clicking in the email doesn't get her where she needs to go, she calls me and fusses for sending her a link that doesn't work. She can barely google as it is and FSM help us all when she gets on the net to buy plane tickets. So tinyurl fills a needed niche in my internet life by keeping my mother happy. Long live tinyurl! I use tinyurl to send my mother links to things because I have to email them. If the link wraps and clicking in the email doesn’t get her where she needs to go, she calls me and fusses for sending her a link that doesn’t work. She can barely google as it is and FSM help us all when she gets on the net to buy plane tickets.

So tinyurl fills a needed niche in my internet life by keeping my mother happy. Long live tinyurl!

]]> By: Scuba SM http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456734 Scuba SM Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456734 Holy cow, this group must have a lot of sharp axes by now. If you don't like services that shorten URLs, don't use them. The internet is a system where free market theories of supply and demand work surprisingly well. There is clearly a demand for this type of service, and a number of different companies/organizations have stepped up to the plate. If quality of service from one of them degrades (censorship, ads, booger monsters leaping from the keyboard), then users will simply switch to a different service. It has been pointed out that there are a ton of work-arounds for some of the applications of shortened URLs, but clearly the users of these services feel that those work-arounds are not sufficient or they'd be using them. Until the user's needs are addressed in another way, they'll continue to use these services. If you want people to stop using them, develop a cheaper, easier to use alternative. Holy cow, this group must have a lot of sharp axes by now.

If you don’t like services that shorten URLs, don’t use them. The internet is a system where free market theories of supply and demand work surprisingly well. There is clearly a demand for this type of service, and a number of different companies/organizations have stepped up to the plate. If quality of service from one of them degrades (censorship, ads, booger monsters leaping from the keyboard), then users will simply switch to a different service. It has been pointed out that there are a ton of work-arounds for some of the applications of shortened URLs, but clearly the users of these services feel that those work-arounds are not sufficient or they’d be using them. Until the user’s needs are addressed in another way, they’ll continue to use these services. If you want people to stop using them, develop a cheaper, easier to use alternative.

]]> By: EeyoreX http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456479 EeyoreX Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456479 Totally missing the point here, really. The main usefulness of URL shorterners have nothing at all to do with hypertext or linking. Tinyurls do their stuff best when you - through print or orally - have to instruct someone to "go type this into your browser". They're not built to last because they're not MENT to last, you silly. This is a bit like saying we should do away with screwdrivers because some people get bad results when they cut their bread with them. Totally missing the point here, really.

The main usefulness of URL shorterners have nothing at all to do with hypertext or linking.

Tinyurls do their stuff best when you – through print or orally – have to instruct someone to “go type this into your browser”.
They’re not built to last because they’re not MENT to last, you silly.

This is a bit like saying we should do away with screwdrivers because some people get bad results when they cut their bread with them.

]]> By: afo http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456483 afo Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456483 This strikes me as more of a twitter problem than a tinyurl problem. This strikes me as more of a twitter problem than a tinyurl problem.

]]> By: flytch http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456489 flytch Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456489 I do yahoo groups... I'm in sixty some groups... own three... and monitor for six... yahoo like to brake links... :( then they put a million "%20" in there that you have to work out... so tinyurl is a god send... just need to post both the tinyurl AND the original full link... the internet is dynamic... so you can only expect it to change over time... and being phished is just part of the game... that's what filters are for... I do yahoo groups… I’m in sixty some groups… own three… and monitor for six…

yahoo like to brake links… :( then they put a million “%20″ in there that you have to work out…

so tinyurl is a god send… just need to post both the tinyurl AND the original full link…

the internet is dynamic… so you can only expect it to change over time… and being phished is just part of the game… that’s what filters are for…

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-505647 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-505647 http://safe.mn/ let people create safe short links. All URLs are checked for viruses, malware, XSS, questionable content, etc. Any potentially harmful links gives a warning to the user (see http://safe.mn/2) instead of redirecting them transparently. This is done to protect the visitors. The list of all shortened URLs can also be downladed through FTP, so no worries about the viability of the service. http://safe.mn/ let people create safe short links. All URLs are checked for viruses, malware, XSS, questionable content, etc. Any potentially harmful links gives a warning to the user (see http://safe.mn/2) instead of redirecting them transparently. This is done to protect the visitors.

The list of all shortened URLs can also be downladed through FTP, so no worries about the viability of the service.

]]> By: jphilby http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-457009 jphilby Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-457009 WHO came up with this 140-character limit? What group vetted this idea and decided it was a wise move? Where are the RFC's archived? If the answer is 'The Telcos' the reply is "There they go again.' Unless, of course, you favor the tinker-toy-ization of the network. Else yes, this trend needs squashing. WHO came up with this 140-character limit? What group vetted this idea and decided it was a wise move? Where are the RFC’s archived?

If the answer is ‘The Telcos’ the reply is “There they go again.’ Unless, of course, you favor the tinker-toy-ization of the network. Else yes, this trend needs squashing.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456498 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456498 The problem is quite understandable but with the monster URL's you don't really have a choice. I use a shortener when the URL is long enough to be subject to line-break damage by wherever it's going. In my years as a forum moderator I've shortened several URL's that people have posted because they were too long and broke. The problem is quite understandable but with the monster URL’s you don’t really have a choice. I use a shortener when the URL is long enough to be subject to line-break damage by wherever it’s going.

In my years as a forum moderator I’ve shortened several URL’s that people have posted because they were too long and broke.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-458290 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-458290 Imagine, if you will, what would happen if someone hacked into the tinyurl database and randomly scrambled it. Or replaced all the redirects with one to '2 girls, 1 cup'. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if someone hacked into the tinyurl database and randomly scrambled it. Or replaced all the redirects with one to ’2 girls, 1 cup’.

]]> By: skeptomai http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456499 skeptomai Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456499 First, here's a great factual analysis of URL shorteners, http://bit.ly/ZuUw (shortened of course). Second, the issue of search engines "doing the right thing" with these URLs is already solved. The good services issue 301 Moved Permanently redirects, rather than 302 Moved Temporarily. Search engines will follow & keep the permanent link. Third, "fragility" is a canard. This is like saying "the internet is more fragile because we rely on BGP for routing or S3 for storage". At some point, you must rely on a set of utility services, assist their providers to maintain the system when possible, and hold them accountable. First, here’s a great factual analysis of URL shorteners, http://bit.ly/ZuUw (shortened of course).
Second, the issue of search engines “doing the right thing” with these URLs is already solved. The good services issue 301 Moved Permanently redirects, rather than 302 Moved Temporarily. Search engines will follow & keep the permanent link.
Third, “fragility” is a canard. This is like saying “the internet is more fragile because we rely on BGP for routing or S3 for storage”. At some point, you must rely on a set of utility services, assist their providers to maintain the system when possible, and hold them accountable.

]]> By: Jon Silk http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-459829 Jon Silk Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-459829 I didn't agree. Then Tweetburner went down, and now nobody can click through to my link. I didn’t agree. Then Tweetburner went down, and now nobody can click through to my link.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-494391 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-494391 url shortener by itself is a good concept and it does address some problems. However adding framing to url shortener defeats all the purpose, even if it gives you additional features like statistics. I use a plain vanilla shortener at http://url360.me url shortener by itself is a good concept and it does address some problems. However adding framing to url shortener defeats all the purpose, even if it gives you additional features like statistics. I use a plain vanilla shortener at http://url360.me

]]> By: ludditemike http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456503 ludditemike Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456503 I think I've been reading this blog long enough to know that everything sucks. I think I’ve been reading this blog long enough to know that everything sucks.

]]> By: RaptorOne http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456509 RaptorOne Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456509 Honestly by this same line of thought domain names suck too. We should only utilize static IP address to navigate the web. Honestly by this same line of thought domain names suck too. We should only utilize static IP address to navigate the web.

]]> By: caldrax http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456511 caldrax Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456511 Why should it be Twitter's responsibility to attend to url shortening requirements because some URL shortening websites have flaws? Anyone can type any URL they want on twitter provided it fits within size limits, and likewise, anyone can click on whatever they want. It's the responsibility of the individual to defend themselves and think before they click, not the provider of the avenue in which the link was found. If people are trustworthy, they will continue to prosper, if people constantly abuse the URL shortening, they will be ousted as sleaze by the online community. It just seems like a survival of the fittest situation to me, and people who click links without paying attention to what they're clicking deserve what they get. Alternately, download malwarebytes or get a mac. Why should it be Twitter’s responsibility to attend to url shortening requirements because some URL shortening websites have flaws? Anyone can type any URL they want on twitter provided it fits within size limits, and likewise, anyone can click on whatever they want. It’s the responsibility of the individual to defend themselves and think before they click, not the provider of the avenue in which the link was found. If people are trustworthy, they will continue to prosper, if people constantly abuse the URL shortening, they will be ousted as sleaze by the online community. It just seems like a survival of the fittest situation to me, and people who click links without paying attention to what they’re clicking deserve what they get. Alternately, download malwarebytes or get a mac.

]]> By: Falcon_Seven http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-457023 Falcon_Seven Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-457023 @73 - JH - Not to start a security debate here,<br /> <em>"...but any security researcher will tell you that OS X is pretty weak, with a bunch of ports open/services listening and allow-by-default behaviors, and really easy privilege escalation compared to a typical Linux/BSD install."</em><br /> but your statement is just not true. Out-of-the-box, the only network 'service' that is turned on by default on a Mac is BonJour, and that's all. Even the <em>esteemed</em> security egotist and mercenary, <a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pwn2own-mac-hack,2254.html">Charlie Miller</a>, wasn't able to 'get root' on the Mac that he p0wned with his year old Safari vulnerability because that would have "required additional vulnerabilities". @73 – JH -
Not to start a security debate here,
“…but any security researcher will tell you that OS X is pretty weak, with a bunch of ports open/services listening and allow-by-default behaviors, and really easy privilege escalation compared to a typical Linux/BSD install.”
but your statement is just not true. Out-of-the-box, the only network ‘service’ that is turned on by default on a Mac is BonJour, and that’s all. Even the esteemed security egotist and mercenary, Charlie Miller, wasn’t able to ‘get root’ on the Mac that he p0wned with his year old Safari vulnerability because that would have “required additional vulnerabilities”.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-511041 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-511041 Spam can be an issue, but the benefit of a short URL outweighs the downside IMHO. We think our service http://zi.pe brings a lot of value into the short URL market. We not only shorten links, but also text, email addresses, and a photo upload. People get a bad taste in their mouths for short url services because they are still using the original old school ones that have little to no value. Spam can be an issue, but the benefit of a short URL outweighs the downside IMHO.

We think our service http://zi.pe brings a lot of value into the short URL market.

We not only shorten links, but also text, email addresses, and a photo upload.

People get a bad taste in their mouths for short url services because they are still using the original old school ones that have little to no value.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456514 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456514 A general problem with obfuscated links that use a randomly-generated reference(youtube,tvtropes' punctuated titles) is that there is no way to "probe" them - that is,hovering over the link to get a clue to their content from the URL name/structure. A YT link will tell you that it's from YT,but not what it's going to show you; hence,Rickrolls and such are possible. Spoofing is,unfortunately,still possible with meaningful URLs,but I'd rather have <em>some</em> meaning than none at all,even if it's misleading. In some cases it makes it easier to spot. @ #16 dculberson: The ebay link is too long,true,but it also includes the auction name so that you know what the auction is about before you click. A general problem with obfuscated links that use a randomly-generated reference(youtube,tvtropes’ punctuated titles) is that there is no way to “probe” them – that is,hovering over the link to get a clue to their content from the URL name/structure. A YT link will tell you that it’s from YT,but not what it’s going to show you; hence,Rickrolls and such are possible. Spoofing is,unfortunately,still possible with meaningful URLs,but I’d rather have some meaning than none at all,even if it’s misleading. In some cases it makes it easier to spot.

@ #16 dculberson: The ebay link is too long,true,but it also includes the auction name so that you know what the auction is about before you click.

]]> By: Antinous / Moderator http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-457027 Antinous / Moderator Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-457027 <i>how am I supposed to know whether a given full-length URL is safe or not?</i> Safe entities like Google or the New York Times can still kick up long search-based URLs, especially for people who don't know that you can lop off a hundred characters and get the same result. how am I supposed to know whether a given full-length URL is safe or not?

Safe entities like Google or the New York Times can still kick up long search-based URLs, especially for people who don’t know that you can lop off a hundred characters and get the same result.

]]> By: betatron http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456519 betatron Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456519 ya ya evil. whatever. its utility outweighs its drawbacks. There's always giantURL if you really hate tinyURL. Besdes, TinyURL was written by a unicyclist. I unicycle Ergo so there. you can have a lot of fun plugging into tinyurl's address space. http://tinyurl.com/boing (kinda funny) ya ya evil. whatever. its utility outweighs its drawbacks.
There’s always giantURL if you really hate tinyURL.

Besdes, TinyURL was written by a unicyclist. I unicycle Ergo so there.

you can have a lot of fun plugging into tinyurl’s address space.
http://tinyurl.com/boing (kinda funny)

]]> By: Dedalus http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456524 Dedalus Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456524 i cant believe "you people" have so much to say about this - im flabbergasted - im veritably vehement about ur various voluminous verbalizations - urls --- veesh - the vindow viper needs to vash ur various vindows - said the vegan to the vetrinarian... PINEAPPLES (see i can make long posts about url's too) i cant believe “you people” have so much to say about this – im flabbergasted – im veritably vehement about ur various voluminous verbalizations – urls — veesh – the vindow viper needs to vash ur various vindows – said the vegan to the vetrinarian… PINEAPPLES (see i can make long posts about url’s too)

]]> By: skullivan http://boingboing.net/2009/04/04/why-url-shorteners-s.html#comment-456526 skullivan Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-456526 Now, is he REALLY against URL shorteners or is this just a knock against Delicious competitor Digg, which just launched its own URL shortening service? (Yet is never mentioned in the article.) I'm not so sure that these links really make the web more fragile. Yeah, in theory if TinyURL closed up shop you'd have all these dead links, but as another commenter mentioned, proper URL's don't seem to stick around for long either when you're talking about linking to an individual piece of content on a vast site. Sites are always being redesigned, causing old links and bookmarks to be invalidated. If it's truly a problem, someone will come up with a better solution, but in the meantime there is clearly a necessity for these shortening services. In reality it's not the shorteners themselves that suck, it's the design of the web that makes them necessary that sucks. Now, is he REALLY against URL shorteners or is this just a knock against Delicious competitor Digg, which just launched its own URL shortening service? (Yet is never mentioned in the article.)

I’m not so sure that these links really make the web more fragile. Yeah, in theory if TinyURL closed up shop you’d have all these dead links, but as another commenter mentioned, proper URL’s don’t seem to stick around for long either when you’re talking about linking to an individual piece of content on a vast site. Sites are always being redesigned, causing old links and bookmarks to be invalidated.

If it’s truly a problem, someone will come up with a better solution, but in the meantime there is clearly a necessity for these shortening services.

In reality it’s not the shorteners themselves that suck, it’s the design of the web that makes them necessary that sucks.

]]>