smashingapps.com — Tini.us is a simple url shortening service encompassing all the features commonly found with any link shortening service but with one huge added feature that other services lack. With tini you have the added option of creating a ?Super Tini?, a short URL that supports reviews.
Apr 28, 2009 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountApr 28, 2009
Word of the day, ajaxly.
stevemaxApr 28, 2009
At least this one adds a feature. I love how some url shortening services offer less than tinyurl, with the only advantage of being "OMG ONE FULL CHARACTER SMALLER!!!!!!"Seriously, what's the point? Twitter? Are you writing an essay to go along with the link? If so, blog about it, people don't care about (and won't read) what you say either way.
collutionApr 28, 2009
Ahh, they forgot to mention this feature. Nice find.
nytelApr 28, 2009
I can foresee URL shortening on every website now.
harlowsmonkeysApr 28, 2009
Most of the short URL sites have not figured out that there are two main reasons for short URLs (well, two main legitimate reasons).1. People who want to memorize or write down a URL that will later be typed by hand. For example, if I find a page with some useful information for a coworker, and want to show it to them and discuss it with them, it is easier to make a URL at tinyurl and just write down the 5 characters (or are they up to 6 now?) on a post it, and take that to the coworker's desk than it would be to mail it to them.For this kind of use, shortness is the most important aspect, and there is no need to worry about people hiding bad sites, as you will only be dealing with short URLs from people you trust.2. People who want to use a short URL to avoid problems with wrapping, encoding, or things like that, or who are trying to squeeze it into a tweet or a text message. In this case, recipients might be getting URLs from people they don't necessarily know and trust. Minimal size of the URL is not that important in this case--a few extra characters in the URL are OK if they can make it less likely the URL will send someone to a site they find nasty.Because the requirements in these two situations are different, small URL services should support two kinds of encoding. I'll illustrate with tinyurl. They should support the tinuyrl.com/a8tg1 form for use in case #1, which would work just like it does now.For case #2, they should support a form like this: tinyurl.com/a8tg1/www.wired.com. The tinyurl server would check URLs of this form before redirecting, and make sure that the host specified on the end matches the host of the redirect URL. If it does not match, it would force preview mode. This way, if you see in, say, a newsgroup, a link that the poster claims is to a neat story at Wired, you could at least be sure clicking on the tinyurl is not going to take you to a rick roll or to goatse, unless wired.com has decided to host those.Of course, this doesn't completely cover case #2. If the url were tinyurl.com/19bhd/somethingawful.com, you couldn't be sure it won't be something that will completely disgust you, because that is a site that has both hilarious stuff and appalling stuff.
byataApr 30, 2009
Hehe! This is shortened by DiggBar!