URL shorteners suck less, thanks to the Internet Archive and 301Works


24 Responses to “URL shorteners suck less, thanks to the Internet Archive and 301Works”

  1. rationalist says:

    Why wouldn’t the Internet Archive just launch its own non-profit URL shortener, which would solve the problem more directly and more in line with “supporting the interests of the greater community”?

  2. Anonymous says:

    @albert12, why multiply the number of snooping parties unnecessarily? Unless you *like* being surveilled by “Quantcast, Federated, interClick and Doubleclick” then it should be obvious that one more company watching over your shoulder is to be counted among the minuses.

    By the way, did you know that with proper browser configuration you can refuse cookies from those parties?

  3. BubbaTheHutt says:

    http://svonk.com , or http://svk.bz , is an URL Shortener *AND* a Web archive in one application ;o)

  4. Kimmo says:

    This is sweet.

    So nice to see the internet’s ad-hocery reduced without sacrificing its amenity to the the blood-sucking corporations.

  5. Kimmo says:

    the the the

    A minute to edit one’s post would be nice…

  6. Anonymous says:

    This site is terrific. Saw it on Time.com’s 50 best websites. Really great. Many thanks.

  7. leeD says:

    Actually, the only URLshortener that truly sucks is v3 – after several years of being semi-cool, albeit ad-bloated, it now appears to be a cash-generating scam.

    Beam.to is worth mentioning as a great service. Been using them for seven, eight years, never a challenge. Smart folks behind beam.to

    Any others worth mentioning here? We’re listening :-)

  8. royaltrux says:

    They are good for sending long links in emails, but perhaps not much else.

  9. James Holden says:

    I can’t seem to find a way for other URL shortener owners to participate. I run http://qurl.co.uk/ – not on the scale of bit.ly et al but it’d be nice to do the right thing.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Sadly, for all the reasons Cory pointed out, bit.ly et al still suck hard. In my experience it’s mostly used by pranksters (for Rick Rolling or whatever, not that anyone has actually *Rick Rolled* me in an internet forever) or by twitterites who’ve locked themselves into a character starved medium with eyes wide open. For that second group, it’s really twitter.com who should be providing that URL aliasing service. Twits have already made their bed and committed to mediating and storing their conversations on twitter so the company-goes-bust scenario is something they already have to face for the rest of their twitteratoria.

  11. Karate Explosion says:

    @kmoser #1

    Couldn’t you make that argument no matter what?

    • kmoser says:

      Well, yes, no matter how many redundant backups there are you can always ask, “But what if all of them go bust?” Now, if the databases of aliases and URLs were made public on a regular basis, then many independent parties could retrieve it whenever they wanted, making it more likely to survive in the long term.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Yes there are tones of services like this… i prefer http://smal.ly they offer me full geo statistics and analytics…

  13. albert12 says:

    Cory – I call bullshit here.

    You write, suggesting a specific problem with URL shorteners:

    “it exposes your internet browsing to surveillance by random URL-shortening companies”

    how is this different from the browsing surveillance I am subject to from Quantcast, Federated, interClick and Doubleclick – all of whom have put cookies on my machine just by me visiting this site??

  14. keef says:

    Agree with this being an artificial problem. I never understood why a simple href isn’t good enough for shortening URLs.

  15. aluxeterna says:

    i can’t believe nobody has mentioned the hippest new url shortening service for twitter, http://urlshorteningservicefortwitter.com/ (hats off to David Rees for that spot of internet absurdity)

  16. bat21 says:

    Greasemonkey + TinyURL Decoder = :)

  17. coaxial says:

    URL shorteners are stupid because it’s twitter and the like with their arbitrary character limits that prompted these things. This is a artificial problem.

    • peterbruells says:

      Coaxial, this is simply not true – url shorteners are 5 years older than twitter.

      And frankly: Get over it, people. It’s not like every goddam link needs to archived for all eternity. Doesn’t boing boing even wipe their comment boards after a while?

      It’s quite absurd – people who don’t reveal their real name ( I see little difference between “anonymous” and “coxial” ) get fussed up because an incomprehensible link in a minor blog comment by some “badassdude” might not work in a couple of years. Ridiculous.

      • KanedaJones says:

        what you say does not change the fact its like me passing a note to a friend of yours to give to you.. where as I can confirm everything works if I just handed the damn note to you.

        and yes, long before twitter url shorteners were seen as handy by people who wanted to write by hand the corporate web addresses that ended up looking like machine code but you know what? that doesn’t change the fact that twitter used a retarded hack to create a phenomenon and should address the url prob with their ‘great invention’

        side note: any company with too long an address is just loosing traffic – most realize that now.

        • octopod says:

          @side note: any company with too long an address is just loosing traffic – most realize that now.

          hmm, rly doubt it, how often does anyone type url’s in vs clicking on a link on a page / feed / tweet or whatever, or from a page of search results? at that level address length doesn’t matter.

  18. kmoser says:

    But what if the Internet Archive goes bust?

Leave a Reply