Roller
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Posts
- 3,813
- Likes
- 86
Not long ago, there was a (very) not so bright idea of making URLs shorter, like converting www.google.com to http://bit.ly/2V6CFi.
Now, the thing is that these URL shorteners are very bad for both the user and the Internet itself. Why? Let's see:
- First, because it's a slower way to access pages, content, whatever the original link is, due to the link having to be resolved, on top of the already present conversion from IP to HTTP link.
There's the excuse that by having faster and faster Internet worldwide, that things like this don't matter much, but people seem to forget that maximum throughput doesn't equal faster content access times, which do increase with a growing layer of processes to be done, such as the server translation of a short link into the real one.
- Second, it's dangerous for the user since reading the link does not provide any info on where the link might actually go. Perhaps the info tells that the link will go to a manufacturer's site, when in fact it goes straight into a malware-ridden site.
Oh, and in the event of people using some services that reverse the process, unshortening links, not all links can go through that process, and the whole fact of having to do such thing goes back to the first point, where it makes for a slower Internet experience.
- Third, having another layer of visible (or not) content between the user and the initial desired destination means that people with limited data plans will be in trouble due to added transfers that weren't needed in the first place.
Here are a few articles on the subject:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40787542/ns/technology_and_science-security/
http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/06/are-url-shorteners-a-necessary-evil-or-just-evil/
http://zathras.de/angelweb/blog-url-shorteners-are-evil.htm
Quotes from the articles:
“The worst problem is that shortening services add another layer of indirection to an already creaky system.”
"It is not at all obvious if a shortened URL is one I already know. I have to click it to actually find out what it is. The presence of several shortening services means I could visit the same site three times a day, and only realize it once I've been forwarded. Worse, most short URLs are alphanumeric hashes that don't at all indicate what's on the other end. That's how the rickroll was invented, after all."
"A malicious shortener could essentially take you anywhere it pleased, and the user would be none the wiser"
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Now, the thing is that these URL shorteners are very bad for both the user and the Internet itself. Why? Let's see:
- First, because it's a slower way to access pages, content, whatever the original link is, due to the link having to be resolved, on top of the already present conversion from IP to HTTP link.
There's the excuse that by having faster and faster Internet worldwide, that things like this don't matter much, but people seem to forget that maximum throughput doesn't equal faster content access times, which do increase with a growing layer of processes to be done, such as the server translation of a short link into the real one.
- Second, it's dangerous for the user since reading the link does not provide any info on where the link might actually go. Perhaps the info tells that the link will go to a manufacturer's site, when in fact it goes straight into a malware-ridden site.
Oh, and in the event of people using some services that reverse the process, unshortening links, not all links can go through that process, and the whole fact of having to do such thing goes back to the first point, where it makes for a slower Internet experience.
- Third, having another layer of visible (or not) content between the user and the initial desired destination means that people with limited data plans will be in trouble due to added transfers that weren't needed in the first place.
Here are a few articles on the subject:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40787542/ns/technology_and_science-security/
http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/06/are-url-shorteners-a-necessary-evil-or-just-evil/
http://zathras.de/angelweb/blog-url-shorteners-are-evil.htm
Quotes from the articles:
“The worst problem is that shortening services add another layer of indirection to an already creaky system.”
"It is not at all obvious if a shortened URL is one I already know. I have to click it to actually find out what it is. The presence of several shortening services means I could visit the same site three times a day, and only realize it once I've been forwarded. Worse, most short URLs are alphanumeric hashes that don't at all indicate what's on the other end. That's how the rickroll was invented, after all."
"A malicious shortener could essentially take you anywhere it pleased, and the user would be none the wiser"
What are your thoughts on the matter?