What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Satellite Radio view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - The Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers sing of Satellite Radio and all its glory.
62 Comments
- nicc, on 04/28/2009, -2/+35am I the only person who refuses to click a "short url"?
I mean, I'm not going to blind click something... - frostbyt, on 04/28/2009, -0/+22New Rick Roll links in coming!Learn how to stop them here.
http://tini.us/20b - NathanielJ, on 04/28/2009, -0/+16It's "fun" to use a URL shortening site? Seriously, how much are you people paid?
- dazparkour, on 04/28/2009, -3/+16Yeah, because they couldn't put bad content at a url with nice words.
- BenRT, on 04/28/2009, -2/+14Can we please stop the URL shortening thing now. Please. Just stop it. I remember back when tinyurl was exclusively used to lure people into clicking a Rickroll link.
We don't need short URLs! I want to know what site I'm going to! I understand twitter has a character limit, but for ***** sake, let's not create an entire url shortening phenomenon to work around it. - cheeze_ballz, on 04/28/2009, -0/+10spam...like your comment?
- collution, on 04/28/2009, -0/+8The layout itself has my eyes going everywhere; that is not a good design.
- inactive, on 04/28/2009, -0/+8You're not alone. Firefox has various extensions that reveal the true destination of some of these short links, but creating more of these services doesn't really help anyone but scammers and spammers as far as I can tell.
- vertinox, on 04/28/2009, -1/+9I don't know about you, but shortening services always result in either:
At best - A Rick Roll
At worst - Goat se man
So if you want a large part of the population to click on your link... Don't use the service. - inactive, on 04/28/2009, -0/+7Bad English. Check
Generic "I loved it!" Comment. Check
Account Created Today. Check
Comment History Full of Generic "I loved it!" Comments. Check. - Swarms, on 04/28/2009, -2/+9http://Tini.peen.us
It's a link to that naked wizard that got tasered. - aetherboy, on 04/28/2009, -0/+7Not only that, but if I have a blog, why in the hell would I want comments to be posted anywhere but on my site, under my article?
- ponyfreak, on 04/28/2009, -0/+5I prefer my urls long, thank you
- inactive, on 04/28/2009, -0/+5Wow what a pointless service. This is all assuming that people have already reviewed the link in question, or reviewed it honestly. Otherwise, it's no different than anything else. Assuming a link is safe just because it's posted with this service is just stupid.
And for receiving feedback on a link, is it really that important unless you're the author, in which case, it's already on a site/blog with a comments section anyway? - Elsewhere42, on 04/28/2009, -0/+5I agree... especially when I'm at work.
- wthulhu, on 08/29/2009, -1/+6yet another new, better, and MOER AJAX, web app that I don't care about. I cant even remember how many nXt gen web services I've seen on digg that I never interact with again.
buried. - NathanielJ, on 04/28/2009, -0/+5This "new feature" of making a "super" tiny URL is useless because not all of them ARE super. Before clicking on the link, you have no way of knowing if it will take you to the review site (super tini) or directly to the content (regular tini), so what's the point?
- EPeters, on 04/28/2009, -0/+5An URL shortener and comment system, submitted to a website that does commenting and URL shortening. A tool that's supposed to cut down on blog spam, submitted as blogspam! However, because of the subtle reference to penises on their front page, I will give this site a chance.
- LiquidIse, on 04/28/2009, -0/+4I love how messed up it looks in Safari
- inactive, on 04/28/2009, -0/+4how is this useful?
- ElecBoy, on 04/28/2009, -1/+5Wtf? http://tini.us/ke85i9
- DivisibleByZero, on 04/28/2009, -0/+4I don't know. When you go to the original "Super Tini" page, there's too much crap around the URL you're linking to.
Sets off my mental "this is some crap" filter. - brokenwatch, on 04/28/2009, -0/+3Word of the day, ajaxly.
- Bloodwine, on 04/28/2009, -0/+3I understand there are multiple reasons for URL shortening, but readability and memorization are definitely not one of them. Those departments they are no better than the line-wrapping mega URLs
- coheedcollapse, on 04/28/2009, -0/+3Am I the only person where who thinks that little guy next to their logo is absolutely terrifying?
- benologist, on 04/28/2009, -0/+3You don't understand, people with 0 creativity have no choice but to clone tinyurl, add some "awesome new feature" like commenting and pretend they've built a business.
- NathanielJ, on 04/28/2009, -0/+31) It's not an image, it's just stupidly big text. You can copy it.
2) It's also a link. Right click -> Copy link address
Not that I'm defending this "service". There are already about a dozen of these sites out there, we don't need another. - ngmcs8203, on 04/28/2009, -0/+2The service is uselss if it doesn't auto-copy the URL to your clipboard or allow you to highlight and then copy+paste. A giant image? No thanks. I'll stick with bit.ly or tinyurl
- rnawky, on 04/28/2009, -0/+2Thanks detective, no ones heard of hugeurl before.
- netneutrality, on 04/28/2009, -2/+4Oh I see it's one of those lame "Web 2.0" names.
- SteveMax, on 04/28/2009, -0/+2At 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. - centran, on 04/28/2009, -1/+2At least with tinyurl you can append preview. to the beginning of the url so you can see where it is going to take you
- madduck623, on 04/28/2009, -0/+1Any respectable social news site already does that.
- kanojo1969, on 04/28/2009, -3/+4Just another effort at hijacking other people's content. I'm surprised they haven't done it with a frame-based toolbar :P
All they need is a tickbox saying 'Make Public', and an aggregation page, and it's Tiny-Digg.
No, I hardly ever click on shortened URLs. It's not a conscious choice, I don't agonize over it.
I just have a decade+ of practice at evaluating URLs before clicking, and shortened URLs don't give enough information to get past my basic filters. - prettyawesome, on 04/28/2009, -1/+2A decade of practice at evaluating web URLs is clearly a decade well spent.
- dazparkour, on 04/28/2009, -0/+1And you can mark spam
- centran, on 04/28/2009, -0/+1Why didn't you make it a super tini so we can comment?
http://tini.us/1f6 or if you want to be obvious... but whats the fun in that? http://tini.us/rickroll - dross1260, on 04/28/2009, -0/+1ISWYDT
- donnydarko, on 04/28/2009, -0/+1Agreed, thats a pretty major flaw
- harlowsmonkeys, on 04/28/2009, -1/+2Most 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. - nytel, on 04/28/2009, -1/+2Yo dawg, I got your shorten URL for your shorten URL.
- dazparkour, on 04/29/2009, -0/+1I like your plan to put the domain name at the end of the short url except that it kinda makes it a lot longer.
I do see what you are trying to accomplish but I am not sure that's the way to do it.
I cannot think of a better way just now to be honest. - nytel, on 04/28/2009, -0/+1I can foresee URL shortening on every website now.
- stevena0, on 04/28/2009, -1/+2Hey, if you don't want a short url, but you still want to destroy the web by littering it with temporary links owned by an unreliable thirdparty, i'd recommend http://reallymassiveurl.com
It's a revolutionary url shortening service, it's main distinguishing feature being that it doesn't shorten urls, but makes them really really long.
How handy and useful.
Please, for the sake of the web, let's stop this shortening urls crap. It's not big and it's not cool. - byata, on 04/30/2009, -0/+0Hehe! This is shortened by DiggBar!
- dross1260, on 04/28/2009, -1/+1helps with long pdf names which some asses generate and put into bad cms like blackboard
-
Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is