14 Apr 2009 11 am eastern

Tiny URL, Big Trouble

Joshua Schachter explains how URL shorteners like TinyURL, bit.ly, etc., originally created to prevent long URLs from breaking in 1990s e-mail clients, and now used primarily as a means of monetizing someone else’s content, are bad:

  • They “add another layer of indirection to an already creaky system, [making what] used to be transparent … opaque,” slowing down web use by adding needless lookups, and potentially disguising spam.
  • Shorteners “steal search juice” from the original publishers. (For example, with the Digg bar and Digg short URL, your content makes Digg more valuable and your site less valuable; the more content you create, the richer you make Digg.)
  • “A new and potentially unreliable middleman now sits between the link and its destination. And the long-term archivability of the hyperlink now depends on the health of a third party.”

And more. Via Merlin Mann.

Anyone who creates web content should read Joshua’s post. I’m sold and will dial way back on my use of the zeldman.com short URL. The question remains, what to do when you need to paste a long, cumbersome link into a 140-character service like Twitter. (If you do nothing, Twitter itself will shorten the link via TinyURL.)

[tags]URL, URLshortener, JoshuaSchachter, redirect, abstraction, Digg, findability, searchjuice, SEO[/tags]

Filed under: architecture, Blogs and Blogging, business, Design, findability, HTML, Ideas, industry, Information architecture, links, Publications, Publishing, Respect, Standards, State of the Web, twitter, Usability, User Experience, UX, Web Design, Web Standards, Websites

36 Responses to “Tiny URL, Big Trouble”

  1. Mark Wunsch said on

    There’s been a lot of great discussion about semantic webby ways to try to fix these issues. Jeremy Keith comes to a lot of great conclusions about this stuff and wraps it up real nice-like.

    http://adactio.com/journal/1568/

    The URL is a big deal. It’s the UNIFORM RESOURCE LOCATOR and that sounds important. When you obfuscate that without providing a clear way to get the original (or “canonical” to follow up with some of this semanticyness), you’re kind of murkying up some water.

    I’d say read Jeremy’s post, follow some of the links, see some of the other techniques for addressing Short Url linking (http://sites.google.com/a/snaplog.com/wiki/short_url) and see what you can do to make your site or web app more short-url friendly.

    For a better web!

  2. Stephen Downes said on

    If tinyurl – which works really well – is bad, what does that say about other indirections, such as Handle or DOI?

  3. Chris McMahon said on

    Maybe Twitter should keep the same URL and change the anchor text to ‘link’

  4. Renaud said on

    I use and love Bit.ly much like I use Del.icio.us. Every time I shorten a link and use it in Twitter or email, it saves the links like bookmarks where I can go back to them, and I can even see how many people clicked them. 99% of the URLs I use in Bit.ly are not my own content. This is for stuff I find on the web that I want to share. If I were to link to my own content, I’d resist using a URL shortner just in the same way that I would not forward someone to a Del.icio.us bookmark of my own work.

  5. Joe Kraus said on
  6. Neal G said on

    I’ve never been a big fan of Digg (as a content publisher) because it seems nearly impossible to land on the home page of the site. I prefer to post articles to Dzone.com and Scriptandstyle.com which both niche sites send me plenty of traffic.

    I do find it annoying of Digg to quasi host my content on their domain which in essence diminishes the SEO of my website while helping Diggs.

    Regarding URL shortening services, I’m always hesitant to click on links that are masked because I always feel like somebody is going to goatse.cx me while at work.

  7. Morten Bock said on

    I don’t see a problem with the Zeldman short url the you are using, primarily because you are using it for your own content, and use a 302 redirect, which should keep your link value in the search engines.

    I can definitely understand the problem in using external linking services, as the will break your link at some point in time. However, combined with the relatively short lifespan of a tweet (how often do you read old tweets?) I do not see the problem. Long term, no one (almost) will you the links from your tweet. Just don’t use the short url’s in more permanent content like blogposts and articles.

  8. Marq said on

    Surely your zeldman.com short url is alright if you’re linking to your own content from twitter, yes?

  9. Steve Wanless said on

    I think short URLS are over used in some areas but there are some good uses for them that should continue to be used.

    Running your own set up is a great idea. There is no middle man to worry about and your just re directing to an internal page.

    Using a short URL in twitter is almost required, but I love Chris’ idea of Twitter keeping the long url within the link, but displaying the text as ‘link’. I would add to that putting the URL in the title tag of the link. That way people can hover over and see where they are going. This would help with spam.

    Speaking of Digg, if your not happy with their tactics (which I’m not) then check out how John Gruber is dealing with Digg.

  10. Stephen Van Doren said on

    This sounds an awful lot like manufacturing a problem and then creating an incensed populace carrying banners and pitchforks behind it. URL shortening isn’t going anywhere. The average user doesn’t care about *any* of these problems, likely chalking them up to the average web experience. If you want to lead in this direction, then when you use your shortened URLs, give the option that gives a clickthrough, e.g., with http://is.gd you can add a – (dash) at the end of the shortened URL and anyone who clicks to it will be displayed the actual URL they’ll be headed to. Other URL shorteners offer similar capability.

    I think the average user doesn’t care about this, and won’t until it becomes the rule, not the exception, that shortened URLs point to spam, NSFW videos, malware, etc.

    The real goal here is to simply educate the people. If you get a shortened URL from someone you don’t know or trust, don’t click it. Just like you don’t open their emails to you with the subject line of “V1AGR4 B1G W1N5!”

  11. Shane said on

    Interesting points about URL shortening. Twitter doesn’t always seem to shorten URLs for me; if the URL goes over the 140 character limit, it just complains that the tweet is too long. Only sometimes, but I have had to do the thing manually.

    @Chris, that’s an idea yes, or perhaps it’d allow you to specify the link text. Then again, scrap that, it’s a move away from the simplicity of it all.

  12. Gabriel de Kadt said on

    Oh My Word Mr Z
    Short URLs via mod_rewrite?
    A simple redirect.
    Everybody should have n.
    Genius.

  13. Simon Clement said on

    The one area that shortened URL have real currency is on the printed page. Newspapers, while they still exist in the physical world, must love avoiding the need to print cumbersomely long URLs.

  14. serdar said on

    Recently, designing a custom-made blog for a friend and I’m also coding an internal short url feature for the twitter account attached to the blog as well as the tweet buttons in each article. Good to see same approach is also used by zeldman.com

  15. Niels Matthijs said on

    Funny thing, mentioning Twitter. Maybe the 140 chars cap is a good indication that posting urls is not such a good idea after all. I just recently signed in to Twitter and left it alone after a couple of days trying it out. The everexpanding list of unrecognizable urls gave me a headache, and even though half of the time I had no idea where they were leading, I kept clicking them anyway.

    If only because it completely obscures the destination, leaving the one to click clueless as to where he is going, shortened urls are evil. So is Twitter btw, maybe that’s why they flow so well together.

  16. Gabriel de Kadt · Tiny URL? said on

    [...] Zeldman’s just posted about the current mini-storm about URL shortening services… [...]

  17. dusoft said on

    ps: 301 status code should be used for url shorteners to pass the link juice (or in other words: to present it as a permanent redirection)

  18. Digg e la nuova Diggbar « Howtoweb.it said on

    [...] soluzioni e script per risolvere.  Anche Jeffrey Zeldman ha pubblicato ieri  un articolo Tiny URL, Big trouble in cui si parla delle problematiche della scelta [...]

  19. Brade said on

    Some clients, like Nambu, will preserve the server name in links created by tinyurl, etc. so at least you can know where you’re going. Honestly, URL shortening should be the responsibility of app makers, not end users…

  20. Richard Fink said on

    THE BACKLASH IS COMING, AND SOON
    “URL shorteners …used primarily as a means of monetizing someone else’s content”
    I’m convinced we’re going to see some real fireworks soon. Major court cases, legislative initiatives, and who knows what else. The changes – newspaper closings, etc… – are there for everyone to see.
    There are powerful, monied interests involved and they will not go quietly into the night. DMCA was just the beginning.
    Stay tuned and be involved. What kind of online world do we want?

  21. DL said on

    Agreed with Brade — we shouldn’t have to use those 3rd party services. if I post on Bike Hugger, the app should make a link for me that’s tiny with my domain in it.

  22. Hugo Tremblay said on

    @Chris: off the top of my head, just replacing the anchor text in a tweet wouldn’t work, the url being part of the characters count. If the total count, including any url you post (and any @name, for that matter), does not exceed 140 chars, then the url won’t be shortened. If it does, Twitter will tinyurl-ize it. Adding placeholder text (e.g. “link”) would in fact add overhead, and therefore be counterproductive.

    Some Twitter clients, like the Twitterfox FF extension I use, automatically scans tinyurls and puts the full url in a tooltip. Given the short lifespan of a tweet, I find that acceptable and useful. In any other context, I find url shortening short-sighted and powerfully irritating.

  23. Do you use URL shorteners? Maybe you should reconsider said on

    [...] you should reconsider Wednesday April 15, 2009 I read this article on Jeffrey Zeldman Presents: Tiny URL, Big Trouble. And it came at an interesting time for me, because I had just received an editorial reminder from [...]

  24. Benjamin Jancewicz said on

    All very true, but fortunately with Google Apps, you can now make shortlinks tied to your very own domain.
    This is mine: http://links.zerflin.com/

  25. akatsuki said on

    maybe, as web designers, it is enough to admit that ridiculously long urls are the problem and that they need to be short. That having a url like “2009/04/14/tiny-url-big-trouble/” is something that most people don’t care about and that “tiny-url” or something would be sufficient… URLs are ridiculously clumsy as an address anyway…

  26. Call center Outsourcing said on

    Short URLS are usefull and important in deliverying the desired results. i agree with the Author for the short URL.
    John

  27. Five Minute Argument said on

    Fixing twitter’s handling of URLs definitely seems like the right solution here. There’s a good mechanism for linking, and it doesn’t involve exposing the URL; it involves meaningful, useful link text. “Link” is not that. (More at my URL)

  28. My Abbreviated Self | Bb RealTech said on

    [...] Zeldman: Tiny URL Big Trouble [...]

  29. anon said on

    What about feedburner?

  30. Dimka said on

    if people want to use short URLs it means it is what people want, so if original site does not provide it (because developers are lazy and leave ugly long URLs or site is greedy and want to have better rank with spelled out URL) people will use some help. Either 3rd party like tinyURL or do it themselves. So it looks clear that surfers want it short, thus site owners should give it to the users otherwise someone will do it for them.
    At very least site owners should offer somewhat on the top, next to address bar a short URL.
    for example this page
    http://www.zeldman.com/2009/04/14/tiny-url-big-trouble/#comments
    can still have it URL but it should be easy for me to grab a short URL that leads here

  31. Codeslinger said on

    For as long as web designers persist in their use of absurdly long links we shall be dependent upon link shortening services.

    The cure is simple and the problem would vanish overnight if web designers would just pay attention to the needs of their users.

    Email messages impose size limits that will never change in the foreseeable future. It would require a major infrastructure change which is extremely unlikely to happen.

    Besides which even if we disregard the physical size limits, the fact remains that typing those links is not fun in situations where copy/paste/click is not possible.

    tweet??? ~= banality^3 WTBFD? interruptus maximus productivitius minmus

  32. bank charges | Small Initiatives said on

    [...] Tiny URL, Big Trouble more [...]

  33. Twitter / Tara Joyce: I know we all love URL sho ... said on

    [...] know we all love URL shorteners but we should consider the problems they create http://www.zeldman.com/2009…half a minute ago from Nambu ElasticMind Tara [...]

  34. Flickr: raymck's Photostream said on

    [...] tried to edit a post I made on a Zeldman image to include a link made with tinyurl (Zeldman recently made a post about tinyurls on his won site). Flickr wouldn’t allow me to edit the post with the tinyurl. Note from Flickr customer service [...]

  35. Digg Users Email Share | World News said on

    [...] to post articles to Dzone.com and Scriptandstyle.com which both niche sites send me plenty of [...]Google's Digg Style Program For years, Digg has been the premier web content popularity [...]

  36. Andy said on

    We’re new, and not included in the article but

    we think our URL shortening 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 photos (with 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.

    Bit.ly and TinyUrl are both out-dated and their url’s are too long. One character can make or break a great twitter post…

Comments off.