Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Unveils goo.gl URL Shortening Service

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the boiling-a-frog-in-google dept.

Google 242

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.

cancel ×

242 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What do you mean? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443292)

Animal or vegetal shortening?

Other services work fine (3, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443298)

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

Re:Other services work fine (5, Funny)

Bottles (1672000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443350)

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!

Re:Other services work fine (1, Insightful)

vandit2k6 (848077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443708)

Hahaha that's awesome, you should open a new string shortening service :)

Re:Other services work fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443754)

/suicide

Re:Other services work fine (2, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443794)

YRUNAHRY?

Re:Other services work fine (1)

agentgonzo (1026204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444022)

Why run a hairy what?

Re:Other services work fine (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444048)

I read that as urinary, was wondering why spell it that way when the regular way is shorter.

Re:Other services work fine (2, Insightful)

flowsnake (1051494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443536)

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

Re:Other services work fine (4, Funny)

omarius (52253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444114)

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

Re:Other services work fine (3, Funny)

Starayo (989319) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444302)

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

They do? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443620)

When I had the misfortunate of using one the other day it chucked up a page telling me the service was busy and to try again later.

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, but it did, and it was stupid as there was no way to ascertain the underlying URL it was meant to redirect to from the stupid shortened URL I clicked.

At least with Google it's a pretty safe bet they'll be able to handle the traffic, and their URLs will likely remain indefinitely unlike others who may (and some have) go bust and lose all the links they stored.

Re:They do? (4, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444012)

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.

Re:They do? (1)

cheshiremoe (1448979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444300)

It is easier for the server to put up a busy page... the busy HTML is cached where the redirect requires a query to the database. If the Database is down or congested then the server returns a busy signal rather than telling the user were broken or timing out.

Re:Other services work fine (-1, Offtopic)

Mitchell169 (1700886) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443756)

Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect... http://www.kkshoe.com/ [kkshoe.com] /productlist.asp?id=s76(Tracksuit) Christmas is approaching, your Christmas gifts ready? kkshoe com mall for you, which involves a number of well-known brands from the Asia-Pacific region the trend of merchandise. Promotional discounts should be, come SHOPPING bar!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift ,Christmas gifts,look, Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift. Nike shox $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,ect... For details, please consult http://www.kkshoe.com/ [kkshoe.com] Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.

Re:Other services work fine (2, Insightful)

s1id3r0 (1666217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444110)

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.

Re:Other services work fine (2, Informative)

m1xram (1595991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444204)

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.

You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (3, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443306)

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

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443328)

"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)

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443342)

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

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

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443368)

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

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

Sorry .. too late .. the employment offer has already been sent out

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (5, Funny)

smallfries (601545) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443456)

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

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (2, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443544)

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

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443348)

FIRST F*CKING SENTENCE:
"(currently only available for Google Toolbar and Feedburner)"

Jeez, just READ the summary ok?

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (-1, Troll)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443376)

Come on now, it's in the first damn sentence, can't you read?

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443816)

You are replying to yourself to read the first sentence...

Draw your own conclusions Slashdotters.

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443886)

Is is that I can't read? Because the parent really didn't read the first sentence!

Okay.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444092)

...I conclude that Jupiter is pie-shaped. What conclusions does the rest of you have?

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444028)

Looks like someone just found out they have split personalities.

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444118)

This is what allows it ( maybe ) to jive with google's 'Do no evil' motto. Since the scope is limited to google products, then it doesn't break the web at large. Without google there are no google products anyway, so who cares if they are full of shortened URLs. URL shortening is, in general, evil.

Re:You guys missed one tiny, important detail... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444236)

Why is URL shortening evil, but the DNS system not? Its not as if any URL has to be descriptive of the content you will be viewing...

Why? (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443332)

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

Re:Why? (1)

wertarbyte (811674) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443382)

I agree. I also use a perl script to expand tinyurls to their full form in IRC and IM logfiles. Why introduce another (possibly weak) link into the, well, link chain?

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443402)

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

Re:Why? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443608)

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

Bastard!

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443802)

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.

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444238)

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?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444158)

Meh, I expected at least Goatsex
http://bit.ly/1CWjG5

(and you know you WILL click this, he he he... you just can't stop yourself, can you)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443408)

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

A demonstration is in order!

Check out this awesome new site I found! http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com [thelongest...nglast.com]

Versus

Check out this awesome new site I found! http://bit.ly/PFfFp [bit.ly]

In fact, that first url will not let me post because it says "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there." So there's a good reason!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443728)

Check out this awesome new site I found! http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/ [thelongest...nglast.com] [thelongest...nglast.com]

This one I can reasonably assume has something to do with things that are long.

Check out this awesome new site I found! http://bit.ly/PFfFp [bit.ly] [bit.ly]

This one could be anything from Rickroll to malware to goatse.

Which one would you rather click on?

Re:Why? (1)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443464)

You seem to ask an awfully odd question, sir. Those purposes (and other related purposes, such as Facebook status updates, etc.) are precisely the main point of these services!

"Aside from watching TV and playing video games, what's the point of a TV?!?"

"Aside from being able to read many books without having to physically carry them all around, what's the point of the Nook?!?!!??"

Re:Why? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443716)

Oh I can tell you what the difference is!

The point of a TV is watching TV and video games. And thats what a usual TV-Set does perfectly well!

And if the point of facebook status and twitter is to promote links, and you can't do that without some vulnerable external service, the the whole concept of that is f**ing broken!!

Considering this, let me cortrect your analogies:

"Aside from watching TV and playing video games, what's the point of a TV with a screen painted black?!?"
"Aside from being able to read many books without having to physically carry them all around, what's the point of an umbrella?!?!!??"

Re:Why? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443918)

And if the point of facebook status and twitter is to promote links, and you can't do that without some vulnerable external service, the the whole concept of that is f**ing broken!!

The point of microblogging is to broadcast short messages, not merely "to promote links".

Re:Why? (1)

Tezcat (927703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443466)

I've often seen newspaper articles printing a tinyurl (or similar) link rather than linking to obscure, very long web addresses.
It's a hell of a lot easier to type in a short series of numbers and letters than to accurately enter something like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8400962.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Why? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443622)

Ditto for Linux Format in the UK. Some of the projects have nice short URLs (e.g. something.sourceforge.net) but others have horribly long ones that people would have to re-type, possibly introducing errors.

Still, I avoid URL shortening wherever possible in Twitter and just work with the URL I've got and the characters that remain. ChromeMUSE is useful for un-shortening links as well :)

Re:Why? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443578)

Ones like TinyURL, that let you specify a not-yet-used address, can be handy for making memorable links: http://tinyurl.com/whytinyurl [tinyurl.com]

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443616)

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.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443632)

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?

Re:Why? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443930)

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

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444164)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443888)

It also acts as a dereferer.

Damn! (1)

Voulnet (1630793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443344)

We keep giving more of our independence and power to Google. Google, have mercy!

There is a choice (1)

alinuxguruofyore (1117973) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443384)

We keep giving more of our independence and power to Google. Google, have mercy!

Fortunately, for folks such as yourself Google has provided an opt-out service for you: http://bit.ly/4kDFIH [bit.ly]

Nope, still too long. (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443370)

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.

Re:Nope, still too long. (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443386)

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

Re:Nope, still too long. (1)

Proteus Child (535173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443590)

Al! I've leaped into a URL! Quick, what does Ziggy say?

APL? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443394)

It should be possible to write URLs in APL, I guess....

More POV than news (1)

s1lverl0rd (1382241) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443378)

Timothy here is very quick to say that, just because it is Google, there will be all kinds of privacy problems. I don't get it.

If this service starts to get widespread use, it's news.
When a big privacy leak is discovered, it's news.
When goo.gl shuts down, it's news.

This isn't.

Re:More POV than news (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443668)

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.

Re:More POV than news (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444194)

exactly..its not like these other url shorteners don't retain that information and possibly use it as well right? I mean if you use a service like this *someone* will have the data. Why not give it to our future supreme-overloads @ Google and make them happy?

Tweak.tk wins the shortening war! (1)

MoobY (207480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443388)

Nothing beats http://tweak.tk/ [tweak.tk] which provides new domain names as shortened URLs!

Re:Tweak.tk wins the shortening war! (2, Funny)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443644)

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.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443398)

[bbc.co.uk] [bit.ly]

Is this really a problem? (2, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443460)

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.

Re:Is this really a problem? (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443532)

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

Re:Is this really a problem? (5, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443588)

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.

Re:Is this really a problem? (1, Informative)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443788)

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

Root cause analysis. This is a "solution" to a problem that shouldn't exist anyway. Use hyperlinks. Others have only been doing it for years now.

Re:Is this really a problem? (3, Insightful)

unity (1740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443570)

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.

Re:Is this really a problem? (1)

Frozen-Solid (569348) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443586)

They're mostly used on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, where you have a very small limit to the number of characters you can put in a post. If your URL is 50 characters long, that's over a third of your entire post length and leaves little room to post the context of your link. It's also useful for writing a short URL down on paper for a friend to be able to take home and easily type into their web browser for when e-mail is inconvenient. Just because you can't come up with a use for it, doesn't make it any less of a popular service that millions of people use.

Re:Is this really a problem? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443952)

I wouldn't use them in email or similar, but ignoring the use in SMS or on Twitter, they're a damn sight easier to dictate over the phone.

Re:Is this really a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443996)

What about printing? Never had to type down a huge url from a printed document or magazine? Wouldn't you rather type just a little code instead?

Re:Is this really a problem? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444296)

Tell me, which of the following is easier to transcode:
(These are made up examples, but still)
hugehooters.com/hotties
bit.ly/asdf1234

The former is certain longer, but I find it way easier to transcribe whole words than a meaningless jumble of characters.

Re:Is this really a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30444052)

Even without cut and paste it doesn't make sense. It's a lot easier to type in a few words or whatever rather than a bunch of random characters.

Besides, nobody should like links where you can't see the destination. That's something a scammer/criminal/spammer would use.

Not seeing it (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443478)

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091105 Remi/fc8 Firefox/3.5.5 GTB6
+
Google toolbar Version 6.1.20091119L

I'm not seeing this functionality anywhere in the toolbar

update (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443652)

Apparently FF is not discovering a toolbar update. I had to uninstall it, then download the Dangermouse release [google.com] to get the new sharing/URL functionality.

Decenturl still rocks (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443482)

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

Wouldn't be necessary if... (2, Insightful)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443490)

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?

Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443640)

That assumes that someone knows how to use HTML and what and tags are for. Given the quality of a lot of content these days (which is down-hill in a different way to early 2000 and the 90s!) I'd be surprised if they did!

Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... (3, Insightful)

marcansoft (727665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443764)

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).

Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... (2, Informative)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443774)

thats not only for search engines.

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

Re:Wouldn't be necessary if... (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443856)

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.

Not for consumer use (1)

popo (107611) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443494)

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

So I guess bit.ly still wins?

Best viewed through Google Goggles (3, Funny)

Zarf (5735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443534)

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

Where there go my business plans (1)

axl917 (1542205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443538)

I was all set to name my company Goo and base it out of Greenland.

Damn you, Google!

Re:Where there go my business plans (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443602)

You raise an interesting question - if you actually started and trademarked a company named Goo in Greenland, couldn't you 'force' Google to give the name to you? (Therefore breaking the shortening service)

Re:Where there go my business plans (1)

Xuranova (160813) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444256)

Google would just buy you send you on your merry way.

Re:Where there go my business plans (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443692)

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

I hate all shorteners. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30443604)

Call me old fashioned, but I like to see where a link is going before I click it.

Re:I hate all shorteners. (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443892)

Call me old fashioned, but I like to see where a link is going before I click it.

Even if it's so cute? [socuteurl.com]

Better idea (1)

2phar (137027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443678)

For real short URLs, we should just give every machine a NUMBER instead of a .. oh wait..

Re:Better idea (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443790)

That should work just fine.

If you actually know of any setups where each distinct URL has its own IP, that is...

Google Gibraltar (4, Funny)

Ruvim (889012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443744)

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.

Re:Google Gibraltar (3, Informative)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443890)

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

tl;dc (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443804)

Five letters? Pah. Too long, didn’t click! ;)

This *does* serve a purpose, though... (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443842)

Whether or not you use or like URL shorteners, the fact is, a lot of them are used. The Google name behind this one will give it staying power.

Sucks though, as I have a shortener in staging right now that I was about to launch to try and solve the problem of stability. Oh well.

Grouping Urls (1)

Xenobiotic (1230540) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443848)

I like the idea by these guys. http://grurl.me/ [grurl.me] Add some urls to a list, and get a short url in place

Where's the security around this? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30443986)

With browsers having built in security to tell me if some website harbors malware upon accessing it, why do people through this concept out the window and click on any tiny url that could potentially send them to goat.sx. Seems that this defeats the purpose of me being able to see where the link goes before clicking on it.

Preview url (1)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 4 years ago | (#30444250)

Most of the time I cross such a shortened url, I want to see the full url before the redirect is completed. Tinyurl's preview option [tinyurl.com] let me do that, without an account/login, it just saves the setting in a cookie.

Bit.ly has a Firefox plugin [bit.ly] to preview urls, but I don't want to install a browser plugin for each service. And what if I'm using another browser?

I'm hoping Google will implement something similar to Tinyurl's system.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?