Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

URL Shorteners Get Some Backup

Posted by kdawson on from the keeping-it-real-short dept.

URL shorteners are problematical, as everybody knows, but with the rise of Twitter and its ilk they seem to be a necessary part of the landscape. Some of the biggest questions around services such as bit.ly, TinyURL, and is.gd is what happens when they go out of business (as tr.im did last August). Now a group of such companies, organized under the auspices of the Internet Archive, has formed a non-profit entity to hold URL-shortening databases in escrow, with the intent of continuing to resolve a member company's links should it get out of the business. At announcement, the 301Works organization has 21 URL-shortener members, including the largest, bit.ly. Many others are not (yet) on board. The members have agreed to cede control of their domain names to 301Works.org should they exit the field, and to back up their URL mappings regularly to the organization.

11 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Problematical by Kagura · · Score: 4, Funny

    URL shorteners are problematical, as everybody knows, but with the rise of Twitter and its ilk they seem to be a necessary part of the landscape.

    Seriously?? I know editors frequently get grief for this sort of thing, but come on... the word is problematicalic, for crying out loud. ;)

    1. Re:Problematical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Problematical is a perfectly cromulent word.

    2. Re:Problematical by Kagura · · Score: 4, Funny

      It embiggens even the poorest writers among us.

    3. Re:Problematical by value_added · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's ironical, isn't it?

    4. Re:Problematical by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, that's sartastical.

    5. Re:Problematical by aynoknman · · Score: 3, Funny

      URL shorteners are problematical, as everybody knows, but with the rise of Twitter and its ilk they seem to be a necessary part of the landscape.

      Seriously?? I know editors frequently get grief for this sort of thing, but come on... the word is problematicalic, for crying out loud. ;)

      The proper word is problematicalistic

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
  2. This will never work by jonaskoelker · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a great proof why this won't work, but it's too long to fit in into a URL :(

  3. THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS by gazbo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, I mean srs bsns.

  4. Slashdot comment shortener by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 3, Funny

    qkd2f

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  5. Re:How does one go out of business... by Eudial · · Score: 3, Funny

    If your own URL shortener becomes popular (it won't), it will have to serve at least a million clicks per day. bit.ly is currently at around 4-5 per day, I think.

    I don't know why bit.ly is even up for discussion though. A site that only gets 4 hits per day is obscure by any standard.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  6. Re:How does one go out of business... by Tellarin · · Score: 4, Funny

    And, according to TFS, it is the biggest of them. :)

    --
    -- SouNerd.com