Slashdot Mirror
Can rev="canonical" Replace URL-Shortening Services?
Chris Shiflett writes "There's a new proposal ('URL shortening that doesn't hurt the Internet') floating around for using rev="canonical" to help put a stop to the URL-shortening madness. In order to avoid the great linkrot apocalypse, we can opt to specify short URLs for our own pages, so that compliant services (adoption is still low, because the idea is pretty fresh) will use our short URLs instead of TinyURL.com (or some other third-party alternative) replacements."
What value are these new URLs if they aren't cute?!?
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
how about we just kill all twitter users instead?
Twitter is essentially an SMS aggregation and redistribution tool. SMS is limited to 140 character messages. I do not think you understand the meaning of the word "arbitrary".
somesite.org/wiki/index/cool_tips/code/perl/hello_world.php
That's just wrong.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
short summary: everyone should adopt this NewTechnology(tm) because it will make twitter work better
1. If everyone uses it
2. if twitter implements support for it
of course it's pretty much useless for everyone else
From tinyurl:
Copyright © 2002-2009 Gilby Productions. All rights reserved.
(2009 - 2002) < 11+
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
How about Twitter just stops arbitrarily limiting characters. Go by word count, perhaps?
I know some avid twitter users, and the majority of them apparently use the idiotic SMS message system to 'tweet' each other all throughout the day on their phones. Twitter can't abandon the 140-character limit for this reason.
For the record, I am against anything that keeps the SMS system relevant in this day and age. It should have been abandoned long ago in favor of standard data packets on the internet, rather than control packets on a proprietary wireless system. There's no good reason to keep this system alive when it either forces you to pay $X per month for it, or pay $.15 per 140 characters when one of your idiot friends 'texts' you. There's no way (that I know of) to force incoming SMS to route through GPRS, so you are hit with SMS fees even when you already pay for unlimited data. It also invites spam that you actually DO pay for, quite literally, and from which the wireless carrier profits as well. It should be illegal for the carrier to charge you for incoming SMS messages. Anyone who agrees with me should call their congressperson to protest this policy and call their wireless carrier to block all SMS messages.
This story should be tagged Twitter.
This guy seems to be focusing on the meaningful identifier aspect of URL shortening for use in a space limited context - without actually confining his suggestion to use in that sort of environment.
He puts forth other reasons for using this method such as control over the persistence of the shortened URL, but that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me... and then he goes back to mentioning Twitter.
There's all this talk of URL shortening services - whether third-party, or in-house implementation.
The question here is this: Why are the URLs so long to begin with?
Why does it have to be:
http://shiflett.org/blog/2009/apr/save-the-internet-with-rev-canonical
A full title in the URL is, IMHO, a very inefficient idea. The excuses I've heard are:
Search Engine Optimizations (better performance when keywords are in the URL)
Okay, I can't argue that some search engines do stuff like that. But shouldn't the TITLE or META tags have more bearing on this than how ridiculously long the URL is?
"The URL has meaning, so you know what you're clicking", Context, etc.
I suppose that when I see a URL like
http://shiflett.org/blog/2009/apr/save-the-internet-with-rev-canonical
as opposed to something like
http://example.org/blog/526
I would have a slightly better idea of the article's content before clicking on it. But then again, I can't really say that I've decided against clicking on a link just because of the link URL. I would, instead, decide whether I'd want to visit the link by its link text/description.
So <a href="http://example.org/blog/526">blog on link shortening</a> would still have the same effect on me as a long URL IMO. If it were bookmarked, the same rules would apply.
Hell, if I were handed an obfuscated shortened URL without context, I'd know even less of what I was getting myself into.
I think the proper solution is to just stop making ridiculously long URLs to begin with, so we don't have to rely on obfuscation/hashing/shortening to accommodate services that have character limit restrictions. And we'd save bandwidth too, apparently. Win-win?
But then you're going to have the problem solved instead of opening up a new can of worms with lots of jobs and neverending problems to solve. Intelligence is bad for the economy.
Stupidity is its own reward.
LOL! Only in America, the free market bastion of the world, do you have to pay for incoming texts.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
"Because bigger is better, right?" http://www.hugeurl.com/
A couple of good questions I have seen, and my best attempt to answer them:
1. Don't you mean rel? No, I mean rev. It indicates a reverse link.
2. Why not make your URLs short in the first place? I happen to like my URLs and have made them as short as I want them. They're only too long in some very specific use cases, like Twitter. I could just complain about Twitter, or I could support an idea that makes URL shortening suck less. I chose the latter.
Thanks for reading, and please do feel free to criticize whatever you think is wrong with this idea. I'd like a way to indicate a preferred short URL for my own stuff, and this seems like a pretty good way to do it that makes sense semantically and is easy to implement. For an ongoing discussion about adding an HTTP header to do the same thing (so that only a HEAD request is required), read here:
http://shiflett.org/blog/2009/apr/a-rev-canonical-http-header