• On TechRepublic: Windows 7: Slower to boot than Vista?
July 6, 2009 4:00 AM PDT

URL shortening is hot--but look before you leap

by Stephen Shankland
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 40 comments

Twitter's dramatic rise has helped ignite an industry to shorten Web addresses to fit within 140-character messages. With the technology, though, comes a new handful of challenges.

Among the challenges are reliably connecting people to the Web sites they want to reach, keeping spam and phishing attacks at bay, and maintaining the service into the future.

Joshua Schacter, founder of Yahoo's Delicious site for storing and sharing Web bookmarks and now a Google programmer, summarized the issues in an April rant about short-URL problems. "I feel that shorteners are bad for the ecosystem as a whole," he concluded.

TinyURL's interface for creating short Web addresses.

TinyURL's interface for creating short Web addresses.

(Credit: Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Until a remote future arrives when Twitter and the telecommunications industry decide 140-character messages are too short, though, URL-shortening services aren't going to go away. Fortunately, their potential problems can mitigated through careful use, and newer services such as Bit.ly are being designed expressly to avoid the pitfalls.

And even if some service falls by the wayside and stops functioning--well, welcome to the real world, where not all information is preserved.

"In the digital age, everything has a certain amount of bitrot," said Paul V. Mockapetris, who invented the Domain Name System (DNS) that serves as the Internet's address book.

Growing like weeds
URL-shortening services are abundant and becoming more so. They're usually designed with a priority on minimum character length, not easy reading: Is.gd, Bit.ly, Twurl.nl, Tr.im, Sn.im", Cligs, and TinyURL. If you want to see dozens more, Mashable has a long list.

And the traffic they handle is large. On a typical day right now, Bit.ly is used to create 5 million to 7 million shortened URLs each day, and it handles 25 million requests to expand them--and the growth rate is at a breakneck 5 percent to 15 percent week over week, the company said. Snipurl has delivered 53 billion since its inception. And TinyURL has a database of 293 million URLs.

URL-shortening services have been around for years--TinyURL was founded in 2002, and SnipURL, which also operates Sn.im and Snurl, in 2001. The services typically were used to keep long URLs from being split into chunks in e-mail, where line limits of 80 or fewer characters could break up a Web addresses.

So what's new now? First, Twitter, and second, shortening URLs is becoming an actual business--notably at present through the addition of "analytics" features that can let those who use the service see data about how many people clicked on links, when, where they're located, and the Web page where they found the shortened link.

TinyURL's funding today primarily comes from advertising on its Web page, but that's changing, said founder Kevin Gilbertson. "I'm working on something else that should increase that (revenue) quite a bit," Gilbertson said. He declined to share details at this stage beyond saying, "It will not change any functionality."

He's employed contractors, but with the new funding, he expects to hire full-time programmers and improve his computing infrastructure. Also coming is analytics. "We will be offering that sometime here soon," Gilbertson said.

Snipurl has been run as "a personal endeavor," said leader Shashank Tripathi, with just three employees, but the new climate has got him thinking about venture financing.

Getting analytical
Analytics are important for URL shorteners, in part because it helps the services break out of low-value freebie use to corporate accounts that need to track what's going on.

Bit.ly can tell you how many people clicked your short URL, where they clicked it, and which country they live in.

Bit.ly can tell you how many people clicked your short URL, where they clicked it, and which country they live in.

(Credit: Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

"We have a bunch of commerce providers who have embedded Bit.ly into their systems. They're using it for tracking and understanding ROI (return on investment) on various promotions," said John Borthwick, Betaworks CEO and a Bit.ly investor.

Bit.ly is just shy of a year old. So why get started now when there already are dozens of alternatives? In short, to do it better, Borthwick said.

"At Betaworks, we had a series of companies who said there's a need for an URL shortener that was more scalable and reliable than the stuff out there today, that had real-time metrics associated with it, and that had an open API (application programming interface) so people could encode and read decodes through the API," he said. "So we said that's a problem we think we can solve."

The API lets third-party software such as TweetDeck or Twhirl call upon Bit.ly's servers to create a short URL. It also can be used to more easily show the destination URL hidden away behind the short URL.

URL shorteners also can give insight into hot trends by spotting sites people are sharing moment by moment. Bit.ly Now spotlights Bit.ly's top Web addresses hourly.

Grappling with reliability
Then there's the problem of reliability. URL shorteners add a new step to the process of retrieving a Web page, and when the service goes down, Web pages can become inaccessible.

"We've had some growing pains and some issues," such as a database replication issue in March and a faulty switch in April, said TinyURL's Gilbertson. And Snipurl's Tripathi said traffic spikes such as those from Michael Jackson's death can be tough to accommodate.

Compare that to DNS, an arrangement of impressive scale that converts a typed address, such as "slashdot.org," into the numerical Internet Protocol address that's actually houses the address, 216.34.181.48. There are primary "root" servers for DNS, but countless servers on the Internet mirror the primary address book or portions of it, providing broad protection against failure.

DNS is used not only every time a person visits a Web page--several times per page in many cases--but also each time an e-mail is delivered. And while it's had issues, it's generally been highly reliable.

The shortener companies are working on greater reliability for their services. And in fairness, their scale of operation, while growing, is vastly smaller than the DNS.

Still, there's a longevity issue. Shurl.net and URLtea.com no longer function, for example. It's easier to start a shortening service than it is to maintain it for perpetuity.

"Many knockoffs have come and vamoosed," Tripathi said, but he expects Snipurl to do better. "Unlike recent post-Twitter entrants into the space, our links have been around since 2001. While we cannot guarantee anything, we can tangibly claim to have been the best in terms of longevity."

Even without shortening services, URLs aren't guaranteed to last forever. Some "linkrot" is inevitable as companies come and go, services such as Geocities are closed, Net addresses are sold, and people decide not to pay the annual fee to maintain their domains. Here, Bit.ly can actually help by maintaining its own copy of the page.

Can you trust that link?
One of the problems with short URLs is knowing what you're getting into when you click them. Is that link really the fun video of the guy tripping into the lake, or is it site that will spam you or attempt to install malware? Is it really a warning from your bank about a bad transaction, or is it a phishing attack to try to fool you into parting with your password?

Clicking many regular URLs involves a leap of faith, to be sure, but not being able to see a "youtube.com" or "bankofamerica.com" name because it's masked by a short URL makes that leap even longer.

TweetDeck has a preferences option to show details of shortened URLs before you open them.

TweetDeck has a preferences option to show details of shortened URLs before you open them.

(Credit: Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

"My thinking is that the No. 1 concern is the masking of dodgy domain names from user inspection, for example, those registered in .cn for seemingly English-language sites," said Vern Paxson, a University of California-Berkeley associate professor of computer sciences who focuses on Internet security.

Some services don't do much to help the situation. "Add adverts to your URL to get FREE Traffic," promises the LongURL.net site. "When you send this link to newsgroups, forums, Twitter, Facebook and other social networks, people will load source Web page with your own ad."

And SNVC asks, "Are you an affiliate marketer looking to cloak your affiliate links?...If you choose to check the 'Hide Real URL?' box then it will allow you to keep your shortened URL in the address bar by using a hidden-frame trick."

But avoiding the issues of opaque links is top of mind for many services. For example, adding the word "preview" in front of a TinyURL link will show a Web page with the destination URL expanded. Greasemonkey scripts and extensions let some browsers automatically show the expanded link. And Bit.ly's API permits the Tweetdeck application to automatically show the ultimate destination.

Many services also try to screen out nefarious Web pages through use of blacklists such as SpamCop or Google's Google Safe Browsing. There's brand value in being seen as a shortening service that can be trusted.

"With our brand, we're trying to create a relationship with our users where it's understood we're looking out for them," said Andrew Cohen, a member of Bit.ly's still-small team.

Clicking links from your friends involves trust--they're your friends, after all. But as Twitter becomes evolves into a global conversation, with tweets revealed through search and hashtag identifiers, short URLs from strangers become more common. The more companies use URL shorteners for analytics purposes, the more people will encounter those links outside of Twitter, too.

Fundamentally, URL shorteners are just the latest iteration an old problem.

"The trust issue...is not fundamentally different from other Web, email, and link techniques that are out there," said UC Berkeley professor Randy Katz. "It all comes down to context and being sufficiently aware not to blindly open anything suggested to you."

Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank.
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)
by July 6, 2009 4:13 AM PDT
And don't forget that it is increasingly common for larger companies to install their own internal URL Shorteners such as this one for SharePoint.

http://www.muhimbi.com/blog/2009/06/reducing-size-of-urls-using-mush.html
Reply to this comment
by Shankland July 6, 2009 6:30 AM PDT
Yes, including the more controversial ones from Digg and StumbleUpon that frame the results. If you're interested in this angle, check out RevCanonical, which searches for the canonical HTML tag to see if a publisher has supplied its own shortened URL: http://revcanonical.appspot.com/

Dopplr, Threadless, and Songza expose shortened URLs in this way, according to Songza co-founder Scott Robbin, who wrote a Firefox widget to find and show publishers' short URLs through the canonical tag: http://srobbin.com/blog/tinyfinder-a-jetpack-widget/
by July 6, 2009 5:03 AM PDT
I always found it ironic that one of the shorter link services sometimes ended up producing longer URL's than the original. I'm referring to "makeashorterlink.com". Really, what were they thinking? But thankfully, common sense has prevailed after TinyURL has come along and acquired this service.
Reply to this comment
by kieranmullen July 6, 2009 4:16 PM PDT
drlinky.com ?
by Khurt July 6, 2009 5:33 AM PDT
Twitter clients like Tweetie and TweetDeck have a feature that allows the user to preview short URLs before jumping through to the destination site.
Reply to this comment
by JasonGooljar July 6, 2009 5:43 AM PDT
All these services are great but what I want to learn is how to create my own personal link shortening service :) You know Techcrunch has their own as does Flickr now. If someone started a service where you can brand your own link shortening URL that would be cool. Kind of like the Ning idea but for link shortening.
Reply to this comment
by Shankland July 6, 2009 6:26 AM PDT
Some of the companies are working on white-label shortening services to permit this, but it doesn't look to me like it'll be free.
by voislapp July 6, 2009 6:55 AM PDT
we created www.pie.im with the specific goal of having a cute name for the pizza events it was being used for on www.pizzatweetup.com. Also rev2 has a pretty in depth look at the rest http://www.rev2.org/2009/06/18/the-best-url-shorteners-for-twitter/
Reply to this comment
by twitter_1963 July 6, 2009 7:30 AM PDT
the problem is simple. These twitter services should not COUNT the URL string in it's message length and allow a meaning user defined name.

We keep making life difficult for ourselves and never look for the simplest solutions.
Reply to this comment
by Shankland July 6, 2009 7:44 AM PDT
If it were only Twitter making up its own rules, that might well be possible, but for compatibility with SMS text messages, there are hard limits on actual character used.
by odubtaig July 6, 2009 7:45 AM PDT
The whole point of the URL shortening is so the link can be passed through systems which may not accept anything other than plain text such as SMS or aggregators. If you add in the facility to use anchor tags or similar it becomes inaccessible to these.
by twitter_1963 July 6, 2009 8:38 AM PDT
See, people who don't want to innovate lead from behind - and stay there. Your are posting the problems, not the solutions. I don't have all the answers but here are some suggestions;

1. Shorten automatically at the server (Verizon, AT&T, VodaFone etc.,) so any URLS are shortened if the known "receiver" has a 140 byte limit or send "URL'S" separately in next message if 140 limit reached.
2. In Twitter (online) show the full URL but don't count the bytes in the 140 limit
3. SPlit the tweet and "links" so any tweet with links that exceed 140 gets submitted as 2 tweets with a "link" - visual or otherwise.

Shortening a URL is pathetic. It's like me having to remember a 26 digit phone number. 18th Century solution to a 21st century problem. better brains than I CAN crack it.
by odubtaig July 6, 2009 11:28 AM PDT
Yes, your solution seems to be to ignore the cost of sending SMS messages, have tweets consisting of a URL and nothing else and somehow organise everyone on the internet to shorten URL length even though this would completely bugger SEO and a number of other things.

See, the reason the answer seems simple to you is because you don't have full comprehension of the problem. I mean, seriously, you think no-one else has thought of these things? Of course they have, they've then thought why they'd be impossible to implement.
by twitter_1963 July 6, 2009 1:53 PM PDT
Do YOU really think tweeters give a hoot about the cost of an extra txt msg?

1. If they really have an issue with text msg cost, they won't be following many people so another one or two texts occasionally won't break the bank.
2. Remember, this isn't for ALL the time, this is for when a tweet goes over the 140 bytes and contains a URL that's too long
3. Optionally it could allow you to turn it off on your network (i.e. no LINK TWEETS if your on a naff txt plan).

I have FULL comprehension of the problem, I said I think the current solution sucks and it does. In fact, for 2009 it's embarrassing for the tech world to not have a better solution and to assume that many tweeters even have a clue as to what we are talking about. They seem links to places they might not trust (and have been told NOT to trust).

i don't care my idea sucks - it probably does - I just want the tech heads to get off their back-sides and propose something better than this pathetic work-around, cludge.

It's laughable, like when the Iphone had no copy and paste :)
by ArsFragica July 6, 2009 9:35 AM PDT
i will never trust a tinyurl again after clicking on one that was suppose to lead me to a news article instead if lead me to a pornographic ridden website. i might even sue the makers of tinyurl just for not verifying what site they are linking to.
Reply to this comment
by Shankland July 6, 2009 11:57 AM PDT
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "verifying"--it's one thing to use a blacklist to screen out porn sites, but it's an entirely separate thing to try to police what kind of context people put around embedded URLs. I think it would be darned near impossible, not to mention objectionable for various reasons, for TinyURL or whoever to reject some tweet before it's sent because I apparently am using some misleading description of the URL. Do you mean that the preview page at TinyURL (you can get to it by adding "preview" before the URL, e.g. http://preview.tinyurl.com/xzy123).
by ry_jones July 6, 2009 9:43 AM PDT
lnk.nu (http://lnk.nu/about.html) shows you the domain and file extension; it's been around for a while.
Reply to this comment
by mattharms July 6, 2009 10:43 AM PDT
Doesn't tinyurl also make money by throwing their affiliate codes onto Amazon (and other shopping websites) links?
Reply to this comment
by craigoooo July 6, 2009 10:49 AM PDT
Here is another free service for URL shorting also file uploading . Http://www.shareHub.com. This one is pretty new but works very well!
Reply to this comment
by Captain Bebops July 6, 2009 11:55 AM PDT
The real problem is bad web design with long URLs to begin with. It's often the result of finding someone to design a pretty web site but no ability to think what will happen down the road with they way they're referencing articles. Some sites are putting the full article heading as the reference. Way too long! Some sites just have a folder with a number that get indexed once an article is published. That results in shorter URLs though it doesn't provide any clue on the article content.
Reply to this comment
by Sporlo July 6, 2009 12:22 PM PDT
Completely agree. Whenever I visit a new website and happen to look at the URLs being used, I always think "Thank you to whoever made this website for being smart enough to design it efficiently and logically" or "*** is with these URLs? I have no idea where I am now!" etc. :P
I also get really annoyed when there're ? or & tags after the regular URL that says where you clicked the link. For example, the address I'm at now has ?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1 after the .html. I hate those! Maybe it's for analytics, but I wish it would just tell the owner, not me. It's worse if someone else sends me a link and they don't bother to remove the reference tag.

Anyway, I dislike URL shorteners in general. I REALLY like actually looking at the URL to see where I'm going to be taken. I think it'd just be easier for the shortened URL to go to a page with JUST the real URL and you can click one more time to go to the real site. One extra click will not harm anyone.
by jake3373 July 6, 2009 2:27 PM PDT
The ?tag=blahblah is for analytics, and they really have no other way of finding out how the user got to the page (ie. toolbar, footer, email, etc.)
I find that it really doesn't make a difference to me, unless I copy/paste a URL into an email and it is: http://www.example.com/page.html?from=header and the website will think I got to the page by clicking a link in the header!
by paulej July 6, 2009 8:05 PM PDT
Can we thank Google for this? It seems to me that Google ranks pages I'm looking for higher when those words are actually part of the URL. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get, anyway. I can't otherwise explain why it is that the titles of articles appear in the URL on so many sites.
by crazysmoove July 6, 2009 12:06 PM PDT
Great article. I wrote a column recently for "Ask the PropellerHeads" that covers the same topic for those new to the concept: http://www.data-directions.com/atp/View.aspx?page=articles/internetgroup#
Reply to this comment
by Rob_Lockhart July 6, 2009 12:50 PM PDT
Interesting article. However, tweets follow GSM's single block text message limit of 160 characters, not 140. If the carriers wanted, though, they could do multi-block text messages. Most mobile phones have the ability to re-integrate the multi-block messages into one message.
Reply to this comment
by twitter_1963 July 6, 2009 1:55 PM PDT
Good idea. Your right, the 140 limit (or 160) should be extended when it contains a URL. I think we'll see text messages included as part of most plans (unlimited) soon anyway. It's headed that way.
by n3td3v July 6, 2009 1:45 PM PDT
If you use Twitter Search, you click on "expand" on a search result and Twitter will display the full URL the short URL goes to without visiting the web site its self.

This is a handy feature, it means I don't goto a phishing site by mistake.
Reply to this comment
by Maccess July 6, 2009 4:39 PM PDT
A problem with URL shorteners is that when the site goes under, the domain may be taken up by a porn or malware promoter, and when your recipients re-check the link several months later, they're taken to a porn or malware site.
Reply to this comment
by paulej July 6, 2009 7:59 PM PDT
How is that different than www.whateverthegoodsitewas.com being taken and re-used for porno? The URL shortner makes absolutely no difference.
by Weudel July 7, 2009 6:40 AM PDT
You re-check Tweets months later? Really? Well, I guess when your shortener goes down, make sure you Tweet it out to everybody... And, um, if you're interested in something bookmark it, so you don't have to look back at Tweets months later....
by Heebee Jeebies July 6, 2009 8:57 PM PDT
Why doesn't Twitter shorten the URL's and put the shortened ones in? This seems like something they should be doing if they want to impose a 140 character message.
Reply to this comment
by jsobrier July 7, 2009 8:36 PM PDT
"There's brand value in being seen as a shortening service that can be trusted." That is why I created Safe.mn (http://safe.mn). Checking the URL is not enough, you need to follow all redirections, and check the final content. Safe.mn does this on each link, and againe very 24 hours to catch any change. if a URL is flagged as unsafe, it shows a warning to the user instead of a redirection.
Reply to this comment
by creativebot July 7, 2009 10:56 PM PDT
I completely agree. They are now more dangerous than ever. Someone could tweet about an article and put a shortened link and it could lead to god knows what. I think that if we take away from the visualization of where the link is going, it causes problems and maybe even chaos.
Reply to this comment
by dmjcalma July 11, 2009 1:40 PM PDT
I believe that savvy tweeters know how to overcome these obstacles. We just need to get everyone more savvy. That's why I started http://tw-utorial.com to help people learn the best practices that are used by those who are more savvy with social networking online.
This was a great article, but I don't have the same panic that others seem to have expressed, in terms of shortened url's being dangerous. Everything is dangerous online...we just need to understand what we're doing, and help others understand. That's also a reason I love Cnet...you all are so very helpful.
8)
Reply to this comment
by cnetmadzoo July 19, 2009 10:28 AM PDT
Has anybody user http://g-url.biz ? I have used the site and you can add a keyword to your short domain. For example if you have a URL http://myproduct/cnet/product1/campaing1.html you could shorten it to http://g-url.biz/cnet so long as the keyword has not already been taken.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)
advertisement

About Webware

Say No to boxed software! The future of applications is online delivery and access. Software is passé. Webware is the new way to get things done.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Webware topics

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right