Slashdot Mirror
URL Shorteners Get Some Backup
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.
They inevitably generate link rot.
A governing body should not have to step up to preserve these databases.
If one of these companies goes bankrupt, their creditors will demand the only valuable asset: the domain name. Does their agreement with 301Works overrule the creditors claims?
running these things?
$6.99 a year for the domain with free standard hosting from GoDaddy and you're set.
It's not like it's a particularly difficult task to create and run these types of sites. With a simple cron script to clear out links which haven't been clicked in X amount of days you won't even have to worry about your DB ballooning out of control.
Throw up Google AdSense on the user facing side to draw in funds and point both GoDaddy and Google at the same bank account. Google giveth and GoDaddy taketh away. Throw in a hundred to start and you're good to go for a decade.
Work Safe Porn
I find bit.ly very useful when I link to a download of some mod or custom content for a game. Adding a "+" symbol in front of the URL easily lets me know how many people have downloaded it, and what countries they were from, which is fairly useful information.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
These private URL shortening sites shouldn't exist anyway. They're just a hack to support long urls on mediums that can't handle proper html-style linked text (aka hypertext). Those mediums are buggy should be upgraded (if only by footnote style guidelines).
The bigger issue is private databases, and that all these sites are independent, with separate domains and slightly different urls. The proper solution to that is probably to replace shortlinks with URNs, some DNS/directory/mirror protocol extension that allows browsers to find the nearest server that handles SHORTNAME://MYURN style links, and to essentially query it for "whatever webserver(s) can provide the file referred to by MYURN".
Does anyone else find it odd that the White House's twitter page uses bit.ly urls when .ly is the top-level domain code for Libya?
Exactly ! Shortened links should only be used for a life of a few days at most. Anything beyond that you should use the full URL. Who case if they go out of business. Now what *really* matters is where do "full URL's" go when those companies die ? Or move pages. The holy grail of a truely portable and perminent URI that has longer life then a particular web site that happens to host it has yet to see light. On the other hand, maybe its a good thing that data gets lost. We've done just great with maybe 0.0000001% data retention for the last 100,000 years.
Make the URLs/URIs/IRIs short in the first place, and get rid of the problem. (.html, leading double slash, trailing slash, www...) /saves/ network traffic in the end.
And use title of page instead of plain IRI.
No need query servers with cryptic fake-URIs to get the real ones. Sending the full URIs actually
One reason the link-rot threat is very real is the little guy.
I run a url-shortner (ish) service because it's fun and I can.
While, I would love to defend url shortners, my advice to a friend would be : don't use these for anything important. They are not to be used in place of bookmarks. If you have a site or a blog.. just use the real URL in the href. You can beautify it any way you would like inside the "Anchor" tag itself. We've been doing that for two decades now.
Also, the link-rot threat is quite real. SoCuteUrl is simply a fun way to send an otherwise cumbersome link. It's more memorable.. easy to write down, text, etc.
I run the site because it costs very very little to do so and is a very easy to thing to have set up. And, it's fairly easy to maintain.
This is where the problem lies. These are so easy to engineer that virtually anyone can do it. Yes, even slackers like myself with a tendency to flake out on personal projects.
301Works Looks like a decent solution. I will be evaluating it for my own site (socuteurl.com).
However, the membership fee, which does not exist now could prove problematic. My site makes no money. $1,000 a year may not be a lot of money for a site that makes some kind of profit, but it's a lot to support a hobby.
I think 301works may have to come up with a better way to support their costs. Since the biggest threat to link rot.. are the sites that don't make money! I think the membership fee if instated should be optional, and donations should be accepted. Or, perhaps the membership fee can be scaled down for sites with small dbs to upload.
Slashdot covered the benefits of using url-shorteners to reduce bandwidth waste only last March! Everyone is so eager to prove how sophisticated they are and toss hate on an admittedly stupid fad (twitter) that they're prepared to pretend there are absolutely no benefits to using the types of services talked about in the article. I thought this was supposed to be a geek site, not some silly MMORPG where the only thing that counts is how high your comments get rated?
Remember this?
There's a reason why people use url-shorteners, and that reason is because they have a benefit to their use! Many of the more savvy tech sites have begun using them internally to save that 'as much as 75MBit/sec of bandwidth' mentioned in the Slashdot headline. If there is a group getting together to ensure this usage can continue to live on even after the death of the individual services, so much the better! This should be seen as good news...
Instead you half-wits decided to forsake any semblance of geek cred you may have had to whine about Twitter... stuff like this and I wonder why I even come here any more!
--bornagainpenguin
Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
Are you serious? HTTP is a text based protocol. If you really want to optimize that much forget about shortening your urls and turn on compression.
So do it internally. There's no reason slashdot couldn't turn all the URL's on their own page into
http://slashdot/a
a-z 0-9, then add 2 digits, then 3, then 4. That should last you a while.
Other websites have dumb, half-friendly URLs, where they add the backend technology inside the URL, such as "http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/mice_pointers/" (what's with the "index.cfm" in the URL?). If they fix that problem, all the links pointing to the current URL will break. If they ever change technology, it's also going to break the links from other websites.
There's no reason why Logitech couldn't issue HTTP 301 redirects from http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/mice_pointers/ to a newer, friendlier URL.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
You're right. I'd read about URNs years ago while reading some other spec. It just seemed to get tucked away in the back of my mind with a lot of other RFC arcana. The people who come up with URL shorteners may or may not known about URNs. If they knew about them, they probably decided to just go ahead with their proprietary version rather than apply to... ummm... wherever you'd apply. That seems like a weakness to the URN scheme. Who has time to jump through whatever beurocratic hoops you'd need to jump through to get the name after the urn: ?
Not a pure rhetorical question. How about urn:goog:43255532? Google could just automate the whole process, perhaps only assigning numbers to URLs that are in the top N search results, or are actually clicked, in order to keep the list from getting too big. They've also got the staff and clout to deal with the boor-a-crats, whereas the commercial URL shorteners don't.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It's not difficult to write your own. I did it (not going to link to it because my server probably won't handle the /. effect.)
They can't even decide on the name. In their Terms of Participation, they refer to
themselves as 310works, not 301works. Later they refer to themselves as 201works.
This does not appear to me to be a very professional company if they can't even proofread their own page...
And this part gets me:
Participating companies will be encouraged to place a ‘301Works’ badge on their websites, indicating that they are operating in accordance with these terms of participation. We will generate these badges so they will include the 301works logo and the company’s logo.
They get free advertising on all of these sites. And last section says they *MAY* impose a fee later, like a $1000/year....
I'm providing my services for free, no guarantees, warranties or promises. If I go belly up, well, to bad... But with their proofreading "skilz" and free advertising, and possibly charging a fee later on, I think I'll pass.
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
I think the article you cite criticize the use of ridiculously long url such as http://www.google.com/search?q=slashdot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a which is not even that bad. If you want short URL to save bandwidth you can change the URL for the one you manage and run a short url service yourself for the one you do not manage.
Heck if they go bankrupt why not just release their database as a torrent and let other people get it if they want? Not like it'll do them any good to keep it private anyway.
The source code is available on e44.us/1.
You can "log in" with your gmail account so one day you can edit your short links.
Anyhow, it's a simple app for now but if there is interest in a "community" OSS project, we can add cool features like, make personalized forms of the app (urls like e44.us/fred/1) or even your own domain (which you can do now with a Google Apps account), optimize it for mobile phones, validate access to URL's etc etc. If you're interested, let me know.
How's about Twitter just stops imposing a stupid arbitrary limit on post size, and then we wouldn't need these horrible services?
The SMS message length is a red herring - when was the last time you saw a phone that couldn't handle multiple messages strung together? And I know it has the side benefit of encouraging brevity and stopping people using it like a full-blown blog, but honestly, there's no need - Facebook status messages don't have a length limit (that I've hit, anyway) and I don't see anybody knocking out War And Peace in there, because it's just not the medium for that sort of thing.
Because releasing the link database doesn't keep the links working?
You need to maintain the link database AND make sure that the TLD stays with someone that maintains the redirection service. In this case, they're exchanging the link database for that maintenance.
There might also be data mining issues if you just release the database.
Why can't someone build a purpose-built compression algorithm for URLs, so we can skip the URL shortener providers entirely? URLs contain lots of oft-occurring constructs, so I would think a reasonably good compression ratio could be attained.
Take a URL like http://is.gd/XXXXX - that's 18 characters where only 5 are being used to reference the URL. Couldn't a generic URL compressor do a better job on most URLs of reasonable length? Then we could build inflate support directly into the browser and skip the URL shortener entirely.
If Twitter is the main consumer of these, and they depend on them, why doesn't Twitter go into the shortening business? Buy one of those short domain names and run it themselves. They clearly have the resources, and the motivation. Seems obvious to me.
J