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.

24 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. Why bother? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    URL shortners only server for twitter posts and other place where you need to count characters, these links become pointless within days of a post (some think they become useless even earlier than that), so why bother preserving them after that? let alone when a provider goes bankrupt.

    p.s I'm only posting this so i can get some karma to go troll apple ;)

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    1. Re:Why bother? by badpazzword · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Twitter is not the only place you count characters.

      URLs longer than 80 characters might split in multiple lines in emails. IRC topics also benefit from url shorteners. Nobody will be missing the rickrolls, however ;)

      --
      When ideas fail, words become very handy.
  5. Will it really by TorKlingberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Will it really by roju · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's a really good point. They could probably set up a structure to deal with it though. Create up a third company (say URL Inc) and transfer ownership of the domain to it. Give archive.org ownership of URL Inc but have them contract out operation perpetually to the url-shortening company (say bit.ly Inc). Put non-assumability language in the contract, so that a transfer of ownership of bit.ly Inc would terminate the agreement.

    2. Re:Will it really by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unless they are going bankrupt already, or the creditors have a secured debt, and the domain name is the collateral/security for that debt,

      If they don't, then 301works' claim to the domain would be a prior claim, since they have secured an agreement that requires the URL shortening service to continue working, and a specific asset is named in securing that agreement is the domain name.

      In other words: it depends on the terms of the agreement with 301works.

      In a bankruptcy preceding, the party with the prior claim is normally the one they signed an agreement to deliver the asset to.

      For example: if I buy something from an online retailer or mail order catalog, and they enter into bankruptcy after they received my payment for the item, but before they shipped the product... their creditors' don't get to repossess the item I have purchased, my claim comes before theirs, since my payment to purchase the item is a prior claim that I have.

      And they have to send me the item, or a refund before they pay other creditors whose debts they defaulted on after my claim was raised.

      The key difference: creditors that have a claim to a specific prior claim to a certain asset are at an advantage to the ones that don't.

      Since specific cash to pay for the item in exchange for a certain service was provided by me, I have the prior claim to that cash.

      Banks and investors that provided unsecured loans, or weren't a trading partner, have to wait in line, according to the priority of creditors.

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

    qkd2f

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  7. How does one go out of business... by KalvinB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:How does one go out of business... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      You can just perform simple redirects, without logging anything... But then you don't have anything even remotely interesting. The natural urge is to log every visit and let people view logs of their links (if you don't, users won't like your shortener). DB storage quickly piles up. A little bit of AdSense won't help you pay the servers, storage and bandwidth.

    2. 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!
    3. Re:How does one go out of business... by Tellarin · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  8. bit.ly by palpatine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  9. Some websites are to blame too by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some websites have user-friendly URLs, such as "www.apple.com/macmini/". You don't even need to click that link to know what it's about.

    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.

    And then we have the URLs designed by web monkeys, such as the link for Dell's new Adamo laptop: "www.dell.com/content/topics/topic.aspx/global/products/adamo/topics/en/us/adamo-onyx?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs". What the HELL is that thing? Even if we forget the parameters at the end, look at the path of that thing! I don't care how your crap is organized on the server, the URL should be much simpler than that!

    And last, we have completely brain-dead URLs that seem to be created for computers only, without any chance of figuring out what kind of content is waiting for us on the other side of that link. Crap like "http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=16154&SR=nav:electronics:computers:notebook_computers:shop_compare:ss". We're lucky to see "notebook_computers" in the parameters, sometimes it's just a database reference number.

    But even with crap URLs like that, unless you have to spell it, write it down or read it on a (paper) page, such links can be hidden behind simple anchor text such as Sony Laptops.

    Twitter is its own problem, they should be the ones to fix their own mess. Someone could start a service similar to Twitter but without counting HTML code as being part of the X characters limit, which seems to be what the fuss is all about.

  10. Does the solve the "little guy" problem? by dmomo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Wish these services would just go away already by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those of us who still participate in discussion forums via Email or Usenet have a ~70 character character limit on URLs. If it exceeds that amount it will break across multiple lines and no longer function. Although readers could just copy-n-paste all the piece together, the TinyURL provides a way to convenient way to avoid that.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  12. And as a plus by wonkavader · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They also give you a way to send people to places they would normally have the good sense not to.

    Cool!

  13. And... by Puppet+Master · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What happens when 301works.org goes belly up?

    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!