Slashdot Mirror


Google Unveils goo.gl URL Shortening Service

eldavojohn writes "The Sultan of Search is unveiling a new service (currently only available for Google Toolbar and Feedburner) that will tackle a very old problem usually solved by bit.ly or tinyurl — URL shortening. Now, we've heard cries for sanity to prevent potential issues (like what if tr.im had shut down and broken millions of links?) but with one of the goliaths of the industry jumping in the ring it looks like URL shortening is here to stay. And a quick note for people who enjoy privacy, goo.gl explicitly states: 'Please note that Google may choose to publicly display aggregate and non-personally identifiable statistics about particular shortened links, such as the number of end user clicks.' You didn't think Google was going to sit back and let bit.ly harvest juicy data on 2.1 billion links that were clicked in November without trying to corner some of that action to make their ad suggestions more accurate, did you?" Google's shortening service is called Goo.gl.

50 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. What do you mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Animal or vegetal shortening?

  2. Other services work fine by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I, for one, will be avoiding this. Existing services work fine and this is one more way Google is headed towards info omniscience.

    1. Re:Other services work fine by Bottles · · Score: 5, Funny

      i 4 1 wl b avoiding ths. XStng sRvcs wRk fine & this is 1 mr way goo.gl headed 2wrds Nfo omnisns

      There! Shortened that for you!

    2. Re:Other services work fine by flowsnake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. I'm not giving up my SoCuteUrl; the links come out a bit longer, but oh so lovely! For example, who would not prefer http://www.socuteurl.com/coozzypumpkins over http://www.ExpertSexChange.com?

    3. Re:Other services work fine by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YRUNAHRY?

    4. Re:Other services work fine by s1id3r0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although I can't disagree with your thesis, as I see the same trend, the question that I think we need to ask is how much of a concern it really is. I am far more concerned about Microsoft dominating the market in the same manner. I am happy to see Google put major pressure on Microsoft as they come out with and link multiple projects into a "one stop domain". Personally I support open software, and I am happy to see Google growing the open source model ever further with each new product or feature. I disagree with Google controlling so much of the market, but they do it so well that I can't really be as upset with them as their dominance may warrant. It is a convince to have all the tools coming from a company that you can count on. Google does so much that just the fact that they keep it all as together as they do is nothing short of a miracle in and of itself.

    5. Re:Other services work fine by omarius · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Coozy Pumpkins" sounds a hell of a lot worse to me... If that's a euphemism for anything I don't want to know.

    6. Re:Other services work fine by m1xram · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any of these services has the potential to provide tracking on your usage of the web if they really catch on. Sometimes a bit of paranoia isn't a bad thing.

    7. Re:Other services work fine by Starayo · · Score: 3, Funny

      One of my own sites came up as "tinywiddlebums". I think I'll use a URL shortener that won't get me arrested.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Other services work fine by at_slashdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a way is better to have one company I trust know all about my digital life than spread out that info to more companies.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    9. Re:Other services work fine by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>I, for one, will be avoiding this. Existing services work fine and this is one more way Google is headed towards info omniscience.

      If a friend emails a Google shortened URL to you, you'll avoid clicking on it?

      BUT HOW WILL YOU KNOW IF IT'S A RICKROLL OR GOATSE LINK?

      The not-knowing will drive you slowly insane.

  3. You guys missed one tiny, important detail... by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Google URL Shortener is currently available for Google products and not for broader consumer use."

    1. Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Google URL Shortener is currently available for Google products and not for broader consumer use."

      That would be in the first sentence of the summary (don't worry, it's only natural not to RTFS):

      (currently only available for Google Toolbar and Feedburner)

    2. Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      See? I can also miss one tiny, important detail!

      Oh crap, I hope I don't start writing for Slashdot...

    3. Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... by smallfries · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hang on. He only proved that he can't read, we need proof that he can't write either before Slashdot hires him..

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    4. Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hang on. He only proved that he can't read, we need proof that he can't write either before Slashdot hires him..

      Well the offer is only for a junior position, so he can't be expected to both not be able to read and not be able to write. Just one of those skills is a requirement for this entry level position. However with the excellent in-house training available at Slashdot, I'm sure his writing skills will start to degrade in mere weeks - if not days

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  4. Why? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aside from twitter and SMS which both have self-imposed limits, what's the point of these things?!

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

      Here's your answer: http://bit.ly/4kb77v

    2. Re:Why? by Malc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find them highly irritating because they do hide the real URL. I'd much rather have multiple copy and pastes with a long URL that has been broken across multiple lines. Since moving from text only email and giving up on the spamfest Usenet though, I can't say long URLs have really been much of a problem for me.

    3. Re:Why? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're a lot easier to read out over the phone, for one - especially if you're deep linking into a site. Seen the URL that points to this article, for instance?

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rick rolling is nothing compared to that time someone posted a url to the FBI site on Slashdot.

      Url had a GET message confessing to having a hard drive full of CP, and it got modded +5 funny.

    5. Re:Why? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Using a shortening service because Slashdot has crappy URLs doesn't fix the root of the problem.

      Yet it's entirely appropriate since he doesn't control Slashdot nor the myriad sites to which the solution can be generalized.

      Even if Slashdot added a 'short URL link' feature for people to read over the phone, most people wouldn't know how to find it - there's no standard mechanism to expose or relate such a thing.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rick rolling is nothing compared to that time someone posted a url to the FBI site on Slashdot.

      Url had a GET message confessing to having a hard drive full of CP, and it got modded +5 funny.

      Do you have a link to the post?

    7. Re:Why? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How else are you going to send people to goatse or a rickroll?

    8. Re:Why? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're a lot easier to read out over the phone, for one - especially if you're deep linking into a site.

      Why would I want to read a URL over the phone? If I'm communicating a URL to someone for deep linking into a site, then the one thing I can be pretty sure of (since, if I wasn't, I'd have no reason to communicate the URL) is that the person has internet access. Given that, there are a lot better ways of getting them the URL then reading it to them--such as email. Even if I want to use the telephone to notify them, I can just describe what it is, and tell them I'm mailing them the link.

  5. Nope, still too long. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, will not be satisfied until my URLs are compressed as a super positions of themselves and stored in qubits.

    Perhaps Google can use one of their quantum computers to appease me.

    1. Re:Nope, still too long. by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Using that new service will require a quantum leap of faith.

  6. Is this really a problem? by geekmux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the days(read decades) of "cut and paste", I really fail to see the real need for URL shortening, other than maybe sending a nice link to a goatse mirror to an unaware "friend" at work.

    Sorry, it's kitschy at best. And no, it doesn't "unclutter" jack shit. Learn to insert a damn hyperlink within your text already(yet another decade-old solution to this non-problem). Most input these days is HTML friendly anyway.

    1. Re:Is this really a problem? by unity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I can't remember the last time I clicked on one of those "shortened" urls. I just skip over them. I prefer to know where I'm going.

    2. Re:Is this really a problem? by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Long links in twitter messages significantly reduce the amount of available characters.

      Google is really going to look foolish when my new, extensible length twitter service comes out. This new service will allow arbitrary length messages and thus totally eliminate the need to link shortening.

      Although I haven't yet named my new service, I am leaning towards calling it "eMail", but I need to check if that name has already been taken.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Is this really a problem? by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I prefer to know where I'm going.

      This will tell you: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yew8dpl

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    4. Re:Is this really a problem? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can also set a cookie at tinyurl.com that will remember you prefer to preview your URLs.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  7. Decenturl still rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    People are obsessed with shortening as much as possible, but I like meaningful URLs that tell me about the contents that's linked to.

    http://decenturl.com/ does the job perfectly: http://search.slashdot.decenturl.com/google-url-shortening-service

  8. Wouldn't be necessary if... by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Websites wouldn't be tempted to use such long URLs if search engines would stop using the URL (other than the domain name) as a factor in ranking the search results. How many CMSs now stuff an entire article title into the URL purely for SEO purposes? Is that stuff in the URL really telling the search engine anything that can't be found in the <title> or <h1> tags?

    1. Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... by marcansoft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not just for SEO purposes. Stuffing the article title into the URL is also informative for those who read the URL. Of course, that belongs inside the tag linking to it, but few formats (besides plain HTML) support anchor text that differs from the link (especially all the text-based mediums that have had hyperlinking shoehorned in by using automatic linkification).

    2. Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... by bickerdyke · · Score: 2, Informative

      thats not only for search engines.

      It's really handy to see where a link is going!

      --
      bickerdyke
    3. Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Long URLs also (should) let us know what's behind a link before we actually click on it.

      www.apple.com/ipod/
      www.microsoft.com/office/
      www.nintendo.com/wii/
      and so on...

      If you have garbage such as "&id=54353" in your non-search URLs, you're doing it wrong.

    4. Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... by bickerdyke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes.. but with most CMS, the other option would be, short, unreadable URL with or without bit.ly.

      As most CMS tend create urls like http://www.foobar.example/index.php?articleid=51243 thats not much different from http://www.bit.ly.example/51234 (less special charackters like ? or = that people might mess up, but besides that...)

      http://www.foobar.example/Never-gonna-give-you-up is much more informative for human readers. Espescially if you have a list of URLs (history or proxy log) that link to the same site, you'll be glad for having the article caption in the URL.

      Say, your friends mailed you several links over the past few weeks.

      http://www.foobar.example/index.php?articleid=51243
      http://www.foobar.example/index.php?articleid=28043
      http://www.foobar.example/index.php?articleid=79344
      http://www.foobar.example/index.php?articleid=97421
      http://www.foobar.example/index.php?articleid=12034

      Would you be able to see which one was the good one? Much easier with

      http://www.foobar.example/Never-gonna-give-you-up
      http://www.foobar.example/Natalie-Portman-in-Leia-Slave-Dress
      http://www.foobar.example/boring_surveillance
      http://www.foobar.example/Goatse-the-movie
      http://www.foobar.example/Rickrolling

      But you were right. A CMS with a good SEF-URL-Scheme should try to be as tense as those examples. http://www.foobar.example/Natalie-Portman/index.php?sessid=uj99346Ab320ljkldjf&user=woheverwaslookingitup&page=3&find=in-Leia-Slave-Dress&showads=true unites the worst of two worlds.

      P.S.
      I tried my best to explain to slashdot that these aren't actual urls.

      --
      bickerdyke
    5. Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... by merreborn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good URIs are just a good idea, period. That's not advice from some shady SEO scumbag, either. That's tim berners-lee and the w3c.

      Surely:

      http://example.com/articles/man-bites-dog

      is vastly superior from the user's point of view to:

      http://example.com/cgi-bin/article.php3?PHPSESSID=0983sdf0er888fsd&article_id=73522

      Which one are you going to remember? Which one would you rather read over the phone?

    6. Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But, website operators that aren't idiots don't change URLs.

      Yes they do. Everyone does it. Nobody likes to do it, but inevitably it eventually happens to some pages.

      Not everyone does it. Tim Berners-Lee doesn't. If you need to give an article a new URL because you've changed CMSs, or for some other reason, put in a redirect to send people accessing the old URL to the new location. There is virtually never a reason, beyond laziness or stupidity, to break URLs when you move something. Perhaps my original statement that you quoted should have said "don't break" instead of "don't change," but I think the point was clear from the context.

      Here's an example, though obviously this is unlikely to ever disappear:
      http://catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

      I don't have any problem with that URL at all. I never said URLs shouldn't be descriptive; I said that they shouldn't be so long that they become difficult to use. They shouldn't be so long that you need a URL shortening service like bit.ly to cope with them. What is it that motivates someone to create a URL that is 150 characters long? It's not an effort to make the URL more useful, it's just SEO. See more details here

  9. Best viewed through Google Goggles by Zarf · · Score: 3, Funny

    This seemed utterly rubbish to me until I put on my Google Goggles. Now everything looks awesome.

    --
    [signature]
  10. Re:Tweak.tk wins the shortening war! by hattig · · Score: 2, Funny

    My URL shortening system is called JFGI (or JFBI if you prefer Bing).

    Four characters. Beat that!

    Btw, I have a submarine patent on the three characters FGI, and also the two character GI, which is more polite, but doesn't have the same level of exasperation with the recipient.

    The big win is that you can safely use the above system at work, whereas because shortened URLs are inherently masking the destination, you cannot trust such a link, and thus must therefore never click on it in a work place, in case someone has linked to something abhorrent and vile, like foxnews.com.

  11. Re:More POV than news by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Timothy didn't say it, unless you're accusing him of putting words in eldavojohn's mouth - the quoted bit is (meant to be) written by the submitter, not the editor. Assuming he didn't change it, Timothy wrote "eldavojohn writes" and "Google's shortening service is called Goo.gl."

    And there *are* privacy concerns, Google is doing this to mine it for information, that's what they do. It's hardly the end of the world though - don't like it, don't use it.

  12. Re:Where there go my business plans by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well you could always start a Nigerian company called bi.ng ?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  13. Google Gibraltar by Ruvim · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, that's how Google Gibraltar looks like... It's funny how the official meaning of TLD is always totally ignored. Case in point: as many others, White House uses bit.ly for its URL shortening on White House Tweeter posts... never mind that .ly TLD is assigned to Libya.

  14. Re:Google Gibraltar by Tacvek · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hope you mean What Goo Greenland looks like.
    Google Gibraltar would be google.gi

    --
    Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  15. Re:They do? by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Quite how popping up a page stating the service was busy is any easier than just issuing a redirect to the required site I don't really know
    Issuing a redirect to the right place requires access to the database, issueing an error message does not.

    P.S. if you are running a website please help reduce the need for url shorteners by using sensible urls.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  16. Re:Where there go my business plans by Chrisq · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well you could always start a Nigerian company called bi.ng ?

    Great idea. You'd probably make US 20,000,000 million dollars and need to find some helpful person in a Western country to move it out of Nigeria. I'm sure you would be willing to pay a 10% finder's fee.

  17. Re:Preview url by IBBoard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are common alternatives, someone just needs to write the plugin. ChromeMUSE (which I patched an improvement for for my own use) uses LongURL.org to do its replacement. If you want to stick with Firefox then all you need is someone to write a wrapper around that (and for LongURL.org to keep updating their list of supported sites with all of these other sites people make).

  18. Re:Preview url by jmarkantes · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's one single firefox add-on that displays the full url in a few different ways (href/status bar, mouseover, expanded link): http://www.longurlplease.com/ J