Slashdot Mirror
Google Acquires G.co Domain
dkd903 writes "Google has announced that they have acquired a new domain – g.co. They said, 'We’ll only use g.co to send you to webpages that are owned by Google, and only we can create g.co shortcuts. That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service. There's no need to fret about the fate of goo.gl; we like it as much as you do, and nothing is changing on that front.'"
... it will just be "g"
-- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
From the article:
If I were them, in an era when there are organizations dedicated to doing things for t3h lulz, I wouldn't be advertising something as essentially unhackable. This is just an excuse to point some shortcuts to goatse, tubgirl, rickroll, or lemon party...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Thanks largely to Twitter, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (even text messages can be larger than 140 characters now on any modern phone).
Please keep me updated on other domains Google buy, you've just made my day better.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
I don't want my copy and paste to have to work this hard.
Seriously, g.co is lame. The Goog.Gl is so much more fun.
Why does anyone care about saving 3 characters of space!?
Darn, I mean goo.gl
And again, it's two characters different?? Who cares??
Google hired the guy that made the original decision to use 2 digits for the year in dates back in the 60.
When asked, Joe Dinousaur said: "Well, if you think I saved memory then and it was 2 bytes per date, imagine what I can do now with millions of URLs. Back in the day I weren't able to convince Tim that he should stick to Pascal compatible strings in URLs, and now we're stuck with Kb long string in the URL. I believe with google's support I will be able to fix that horror."
That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service.
I'm only confident that I will be tracked, photographed, my wifi details leaked and/or x-rayed. Privacy stops wherever you g.co?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Which country has the .co TLD ?
My guess would be Colombia
I wonder how many 'g's (grand) the had to pay the drug lords there?
The most convientient way to access the most famous site on the internet.
It only doesn't exist if you've never used a phone before. Otherwise, you find long URLs hard to read, and on other mediums too (IRC, etc.)
I downvoted it. Why the hell is whatever Google buys news anyway?
The solution to long, hard-to-read URLs is not short, hard-to-read URLs.
In fact, as long as clicking them works, it really doesn't matter how long they are.
Most of the time, the beginning of the URL is the important part anyway. And if it's purposely obfuscated, maybe I just don't want to go there.
Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?
What about typing out a full length URL when you don't have the option of copy-paste?
Or trying to copy/paste a multi-line URL in an IRC client while on your phone w/ a screen that's 2" wide?
Please don't make the all-to-common mistake of thinking a technology or idea has no point simply because it doesn't fit your own usage patterns.
Not long after Team America:World Police get Khadafi out then maybe we'll be able to have goog.ly. Woo hoo. Maybe I'll jump in and register it myself and sell it to the googolplex for a cool $1M.
And got GoogFace.com or FoogleBook.com I think that would be.... um
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
I thought with the new anything goes TLD rules Google could just buy and make a .google or .g TLD?
by the letter g.
Thanks, I'll get back to watching TV with my kids now.
Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?
Out of everyone, especially Google should understand the power of the phrase "just google it".
Yes because it is much better to send somebody a URL that looks like this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+%4040.757308,-73.989735&daddr=350+5th+Avenue,+New+York,+NY+10118+(Empire+State+Building)&hl=en&ll=40.75267,-73.987169&spn=0.009899,0.016158&sll=40.752459,-73.987169&sspn=0.009899,0.016158&geocode=FTzobQIdmQGX-w%3BFUvGbQIdERKX-yFzdY-mZOGFkSlpdBGzqVnCiTEsrLWKpFygrA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16
Instead of using the shortener.
Evidently because g.co is easier to remember.
Drop the "oogle". Just "g".
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Thanks largely to Twitter, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (even text messages can be larger than 140 characters now on any modern phone).
I just wrote a letter yesterday (distribution to ~100 people) which includes a link to an online calendar. I don't control that infrastructure, and the original URL was about 80 characters long. I included an is.gd URL in the letter so people only have to type about 10 characters to see the calendar.
Why is this not a valid solution?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
try https://g.co/
g.co use an invalid security certificate
Certificate valide only for :
*.google.com , google.com , *.atggl.com , *.youtube.com , youtube.com , *.ytimg.com , *.google.com.br , *.google.co.in , *.google.es , *.google.co.uk , *.google.ca , *.google.fr , *.google.pt , *.google.it , *.google.de , *.google.cl , *.google.pl , *.google.nl , *.google.com.au , *.google.co.jp , *.google.hu , *.google.com.mx , *.google.com.ar , *.google.com.co , *.google.com.vn , *.google.com.tr , *.android.com , *.googlecommerce.com
(error code : ssl_error_bad_cert_domain)
In fact, as long as clicking them works, it really doesn't matter how long they are.
Right, and shorteners are frequently used when communicating over non-clickable media (phone, print, etc.) Think of it as as technology bridge with decent ergonomics.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You mean, your phone doesn't have a keyboard? :p
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
No, text messages cannot be longer than 140 characters (or 160, or whatever the limit actually is).
Your phone just sends out multiple texts invisibly. Some phones stitch these together on the receiving end. Others do not.
Either way, it's more than a single text if you have a message limit.
Ever try to read someone a full-length URL over the phone?
Why on earth would I ever need to do that? Telling them 3 keywords to search for on Google would probably be easier if I really needed to tell them verbally and for some reason couldn't just say "I'll e-mail/text you the link".
And as long as we're on the subject of readibility, a string of random, case-sensitive alphanumeric characters doesn't score high on the readibility quotient. At least now they usually let you try asking for a readable URL, which will probably already be taken and you'll get whatever random one it gives you.
What about typing out a full length URL when you don't have the option of copy-paste?
What? I thought even the iPhone supported that by now. *ducks*
Or trying to copy/paste a multi-line URL in an IRC client while on your phone w/ a screen that's 2" wide?
I'd just do like I always do in Facebook chat: try to give the person on the other end enough time to read your last message and then don't put anything before the URL in the message you're sending.
Really though the IRC client should be intelligent enough to shorten the displayed text for the link. Anything after ? is probably redundant. If you need to see the rest of the link, hover over it. (And yes, there should be a way to "hover" on a link, even on a phone.)
I don't see how exactly this fits the definition of "stuff that matters". Or "news for nerds" too, actually.
"Go forth, and be excellent to each other" --Bill & Ted
sure, blame sub par services for this.
hey, my phone doesn't have copy and paste, the fault is long urls!
I see a problem here, don't you?
sure, the problem is the phone without copy and paste!
dull, uhu?
We’ll only use g.co to send you to webpages that are owned by Google, and only we can create g.co shortcuts. That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service. There’s no need to fret about the fate of goo.gl; we like it as much as you do, and nothing is changing on that front. It will continue to be our public URL shortener that anybody can use to shorten URLs across the web.
It sounds like only Google owned URLs will be available through g.co and the public will continue to use goo.gl so no need to debate this it's really a minor amount of links compared to what users produce.
My work here is dung.
Can't you just write a bit of Javascript that runs in your browser so that the long URL is displayed however you want? That would seem like a less complicated solution to the problem of unwieldy URLs... a few lines of javascript as opposed to adding an entirely new domain that somehow encodes all the data in the unwieldy URL in a few short letters.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK .. so I can trust g.co links, 'cause Google tells me that they are un-hackable (and I trust Google implicitly - more so than FB ;-) ) But what happens when those glyphs are rendered in different charsets (or what ever the correct terminology is) that look like g.co, but aren't what Google says are g.co? This just seems like a spoofing attack just waiting to happen.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Yes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+%4040.757308,-73.989735&daddr=350+5th+Avenue,+New+York,+NY+10118+(Empire+State+Building)&hl=en&ll=40.75267,-73.987169&spn=0.009899,0.016158&sll=40.752459,-73.987169&sspn=0.009899,0.016158&geocode=FTzobQIdmQGX-w%3BFUvGbQIdERKX-yFzdY-mZOGFkSlpdBGzqVnCiTEsrLWKpFygrA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16
is much better than
http://tinyurl.com/3e38b5d
1) In the former, I know what I'm clicking on at a glance: Google Maps.
1.5) I can also get a general idea of where in Google Maps it points.
2) Infinitely many such long links exist; not so with the short ones.
3) The long one can be shown as maps.google.com/maps?...
Yes because it is much better to send somebody a URL that looks like this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+%4040.757308,-73.989735&daddr=350+5th+Avenue,+New+York,+NY+10118+(Empire+State+Building)&hl=en&ll=40.75267,-73.987169&spn=0.009899,0.016158&sll=40.752459,-73.987169&sspn=0.009899,0.016158&geocode=FTzobQIdmQGX-w%3BFUvGbQIdERKX-yFzdY-mZOGFkSlpdBGzqVnCiTEsrLWKpFygrA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16
Instead of using the shortener.
clearly... http://maps.g.co/maps?saddr=42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+%4040.757308,-73.989735&daddr=350+5th+Avenue,+New+York,+NY+10118+(Empire+State+Building)&hl=en&ll=40.75267,-73.987169&spn=0.009899,0.016158&sll=40.752459,-73.987169&sspn=0.009899,0.016158&geocode=FTzobQIdmQGX-w%3BFUvGbQIdERKX-yFzdY-mZOGFkSlpdBGzqVnCiTEsrLWKpFygrA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16 is a HUGE improvement.
Collector's Edition
its 1120 bits, which is 140 octets or 160 septets. In europe the networks use septets, in USA its apparently octets, not sure why though
I agree. What is wrong with that?
Not like you need to really read it, just be able to click it.If you do want to read it you still can.
A letter? Like one of the kind that you mail? With real stamps?
Okay, I'll begrudgingly admit that if I had to inscribe a long URL in hieroglyphics on a clay tablet, a URL shortener might be helpful.
Why is this not a valid solution?
It's valid, it's just less than ideal. Much less than ideal.
You work for experts-exchange? Yeah, it's too bad, really; ExpertSexChange.com doesn't even work any more.
I guess you could tell them to Google "ExpertSexChange", that works...
Yes because it is much better to send somebody a URL that looks like this
There, I fixed it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
You severely misunderstand how shorteners work.
The URL would be more like:
http://g.co/A5t8324Y
When I see goo.gl I'm trained to think it's goatse because I believe anyone can use that domain where Google stated that g.co will be for Google to use only.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
a solution that works for "everybody"
i know that at least FireFox has an addon called Long Url Please (i have it installed) and i would bet that similar extensions exist for those browsers run by folks that would care about such things.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
And how many end users know how to edit HTML in their emails or even want to? And how many prefer to send their emails in plain text or Rich Text? Or what if I am texting it to somebody?
If somebody asked me for directions to my house - I would much rather send them something I can copy and paste straight from Google's site (which is likely how this will work) into my email that is less intimidating.
I'm curious - are you anti-zip files, too? I mean why zip 5 files into one when you could just attach all 5 to an email.
Why on earth would I ever need to do that? Telling them 3 keywords to search for on Google would probably be easier if I really needed to tell them verbally and for some reason couldn't just say "I'll e-mail/text you the link".
Requiring you to get the email address over the phone in some cases, which can be even more tedious than a URL.
What? I thought even the iPhone supported that by now. *ducks*
Not that copy paste is impossible - but that sometimes it's awkward and can be easier to type a few characters, on any phone.
Really though the IRC client should be intelligent enough to shorten the displayed text for the link. Anything after ? is probably redundant. If you need to see the rest of the link, hover over it. (And yes, there should be a way to "hover" on a link, even on a phone.)
Possibly - and yet software has shortcomings. Saying that the tool to workaround them is not useless because the workaround shouldn't be necessary is not a valid argument.
Another use case - and one I mostly use it for - I have something I'm looking at on my phone, and want to get it on my desktop. Since I rarely use email on my desktop, simply sending myself the link is a lot more work than typing "b + 5 chars", since I have "b" as a shortcut to bit.ly. Ideally all of my devices could talk to each other - shared clipboard and notification. Until that happens, though, workarounds like the one above keep it relatively painless.
So what you're saying is - because software has shortcomings - any workaround to those shortcomings is invalid?
I see a problem here, don't you?
*whoosh*
my very old phone used baudot!
And how many end users know how to edit HTML in their emails or even want to? And how many prefer to send their emails in plain text or Rich Text? Or what if I am texting it to somebody?
The browser should shorten it. You shouldn't have to. But even if the browser doesn't, I'd prefer the long version.
If they trust you enough to click a short, random URL, they should trust you enough to click a long, "intimidating" one. Just set it off with enough white space that it's distinct from the text around it, or send it in its own message.
If somebody asked me for directions to my house - I would much rather send them something I can copy and paste straight from Google's site (which is likely how this will work) into my email that is less intimidating.
Actually, this works just fine, is much shorter, and is readable enough that I don't think it's intimidating:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=from:42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+@40.757308,-73.989735+to:350+5th+Avenue,+10118+(Empire+State+Building)
I don't know why Google Maps won't just give you that, though.
I'm curious - are you anti-zip files, too? I mean why zip 5 files into one when you could just attach all 5 to an email.
There are a few reasons that it might make sense to zip them. Lots (more than 5), big (and easily compressed), sensitive (and needing encryption) spring to mind. Short of those, I don't see any reason to zip them.
Yes. It presents no problems, and I'm not convinced that it's easier to read a random code to someone than a page name.
They are a good thing in a good number of circumstances. The beef I have is that now sites are using custom URL shorteners on links back to their own site! Hell, I saw one yesterday that's a WordPress plug-in, providing short links to other entires on the same friggin' blog. WTF is the point? A competent blogger/writer is going to put the link on the related words and not just dump a URL.
The National Post has natpo.st, Ars Technica has (IIRC) arst.ch (not even with an 'e'). Now THAT is a solution without a problem.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You don't know what URL shorteners are really for?
They're for tracking/counting, particularly for outbound links when your own httpd isn't where the link leads. (But also for whenever someone simply doesn't want to ask IT for the apache logs or wants to use a trendy new reporting tool rather than rely on the last couple decades worth of accreted tools (what can I say, people are funny).)
And the best thing about counting is that you don't have to count the cost.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It's the same in the US. 140 chars is the twitter limit, not the SMS limit.
Really, anyone who can't type gee-oh-oh-gee-el-ee-dot-see-oh-em in under a millionth of a second by now shouldn't be using the internet anyway.
The solution to this problem is hyperlinks. Hyperlinks were also the solution to this problem a decade ago. On a computer, text doesn't have to be plain.
Never understood why Twitter didn't allow those. (Or why it's 140 characters instead of 160, for that matter.)
Visit the
"If somebody asked me for directions to my house - " I tell 'em "Five miles north of Foreman, left on county road 116." If they aren't smart enough to find my house with those directions, I don't want them on my property. Hell, they might be dumb enough to do a swan dive into the well, or something, then sue me! And, it ain't just liberals who would do such a thing these days, either!
It's just mind boggling that people can't give or take directions anymore. Someone asked in a forum if the internet made you stupid. I wanted to argue "Not only NO, but HELL NO, the internet doesn't make you stupid!" Then, my kid walked through the room with his GPS positioning dohicky, apparently trying to figure out if he was home yet!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Yeah, there is a problem here. What are the workarounds for the shortcomings of your underthought workarounds for the original shortcommings?
Also, what are the workarounds for the other thounsand of (way more common) use cases where one'd want copy/paste but doesn't have it?
Rethinking email
The service sending the SMS should shorten those URLs for you, keeping the full version (the 'href', not necessarily the text) for HTML enabled readers.
Forcing users to shorten them for everyone is a crude hack.
Dilbert RSS feed
google also uses a lot of one-character variable names in their javascript. Maybe at their scale, they do care about saving a few characters on each page they serve.
I thought with the new anything goes TLD rules Google could just buy and make a .google or .g TLD?
g.spot
That means you can visit a g.co shortcut confident you will always end up at a page for a Google product or service.
You know how I knew that before? If the link was in the google.com domain. Someone at Google must have seen the Overstock.com commercials explaining how o.co is also Overstock and think, "Damn, we need us some of that!"
I don't understand this. I get it, they think we're all two lazy to type the whole name with our thumbs on a smartphone, but for the last 10 years how many millions of dollars have been spent to persuade potential customers "when you're thinking bargains, think Overstock.com" or "google.com is the only site you need for search". Only to dilute that message now by introducing new domains?
It's crazy. Who's behind it? FaceBook like with their fake paid anti-Google story? M$?
Ten years ago the future looked bleak: there was *one* company out there producing shitty software and having what seemed like an impossible to break away from grip on everything.
Now thanks to Apple and Google the situation is different and yet here Apple and Google are *constantly* bashed. It makes no sense. It is a fact that some companies (cough... FaceBook... cough) did pay people to post negative comments on their competitors. /. got infested by paid astroturfing M$/FB account that keep on criticizing Apple and Google at their every move. Screw this.
What a tragic story. Even more so, because if they had a properly trained and certified Doctor of Chiropractic on staff at that hospital they probably could have saved him.
Never underestimate the danger of untreated subluxations.
Next up: Enya's new album available at http://or.i.no.co/flow
Except that link shorteners don't save any characters overall, just in the initial transmission. Unless Google uses a third-party link shortener, the actual cost will be the length of the shortened URL (twice, once sent to the client and once sent back to Google's link shortening service), the HTTP header overhead (both request and response) and they'll still have to send the original URL to the browser. All that is in addition to the latency of an additional HTTP request. That's saving characters like shopping at a sale is saving money.
Contrast that with the JavaScript example you mentioned that's just the result of a compressor which no only makes the JavaScript they deliver smaller but also adds an obfuscation layer to make it harder to tell what's going on in the page. One makes sense, they other doesn't.
Wait, what?
My point - my only point in my reply to AC - is that for the one scenario that AC argued against, his argument was not valid. Whether or not software should provide a feature is not the point. Whether or not the workaround for the lack is the best possible workaround solution is also not the point. Certainly I'm not prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution to a particular software lack. (In fact, the use case I was thinking of - copy and paste worked fine, but selecting text and copying it in a tiny font on a tiny screen with big fingers is a pain in the ass.)
For some use cases hyperlinks work. For some they don't. For some you can use either/or - choice is good, etc.
Why do people have such a hard time with this kind of service? If you don't like it... don't use it. Nobody holds a gun to your head. Since millions of people are using it, I can't understand the argument that it's useless - because clearly to a signficant number of people it is *not* useless.
The only thing that can be said is that it doesn't fit your personal criteria of "useful" -- and that's far from a definitive statement for anyone but you. ("your/you" in the general sense - eg the speaker)
It's valid, it's just less than ideal. Much less than ideal.
What would be better? I'm open to suggestions.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I'm not saying URL shorteners aren't useful. I'm saying that in most cases there's a better, existing solution that's less prone to linkrot and actually lets me see where I'm going.
Hyperlinks aren't supported on Twitter, so the choice argument doesn't seem relevant here. (Also, it's other people's use of URL shorteners that affects me, but I can accept being outvoted.) If you want more choice, you should be arguing for hyperlinks, not defending URL shorteners.
Visit the
Just about anything electronic. HTML-formatted e-mail, or at least a PDF.
But neither of those help somebody with a piece of paper in their hands get to a URL.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Register a domain and link to it, then; if you're organized enough to need a group calendar you probably ought to have a website.
Heck, I'm pretty sure that Google Apps would do a calendar for your domain.
"Switching to g.co can save you 20% or more on your URL length. So easy a /.er can do it!"
www.foo9bar.com ~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I guess you don't consider blackberries to be modern phones, because my old storm2 definitely couldn't handle more than 160 chars per message! - - - That's ok, I don't consider it modern, either...
So, I shortened it. See:
http://bit.ly/i8zRxz
if you are on a phone without copy paste, how do you get the damned url to be shortened in the first place? your reasoning make no sense.
A) You can trim down long get requests, just take out all the tracking information and preferences and such. For example, only send the bold part of these urls, as the italicized portion is superfluous:
/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310996750&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Buffalo-Technology-AirStation-Wireless-WZR-HP-AG300H/dp/B004UAL5AU
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr= 42+St+-+Port+Authority+Bus+Terminal+%40 40.757308,-73.989735&daddr=350+5th+Avenue,+New+York,+NY+10118 +(Empire+State+Building)&hl=en&ll=40.75267,-73.987169&spn=0.009899,0.016158&sll=40.752459,-73.987169&sspn=0.009899,0.016158&geocode=FTzobQIdmQGX-w%3BFUvGbQIdERKX-yFzdY-mZOGFkSlpdBGzqVnCiTEsrLWKpFygrA&mra=ls &dirflg=w &z=16
B) Most users use HTML in their e-mail. Have you not looked at the plain text version of an e-mail for a while? Expecting users to edit HTML directly would be a 'fault' of their e-mail program, and I doubt that many do. (Hopefully not, otherwise my e-mail is mostly sent by people with serious psych issues since their messages have "<div></div>" repeated ~50 times. All work and no play I suppose...)
C) So, you open a webpage on a desktop computer, type the URL into a text message on a mobile phone, and expect the recipient to open it on a mobile browser? That's kinda silly... Send the text message directly from the computer, and the recipient will just tap the link to open it (and amusingly enough, multi-line links are easier to tap than tiny ones). Or open the page in your mobile browser and send it that way. Either way, you shouldn't be typing URLs into text messages on your phone.
D) I assume you've never been Rickrolled (or worse, given that this is Slashdot)? And that your contacts never send you pointless links or URLs that you've been to before?
The solution to long, hard-to-read URLs is not short, hard-to-read URLs.
You did pick that up, right? So why are you posting a long, hard to read URL if that doesn't have anything to do with the solution?
I am not devoid of humor.