Another TinyURL

It's always good to see more TinyURL clones out there. Why? Because each of the URL-abbreviated systems adds a single point of failure to a web that should otherwise perforce be free of them, so the more of these things get launched - assuming competition in the space sustains a sufficiently high level of market fragmentation - the fewer total links any single one of them can take with it if it falls over. Personally I use the little-known Qurl for my URL-shortening needs because it's, well, very short which is kind of the point. I recommend you find an obscure one too, or at least check from time to time which one has the largest audience and choose on that basis one of the others.

Comments

[R N B]

I can't see the point of tinyurl (or any of its clones) for anything but very exceptional (linespanning) cases. Surely we would all much rather click through a full name where we can see the "origin" rather than a tinyurl that could lead you anywhere. Clearly reduced points of potential catastrophic failure is a good thing for the web generally, but I'm probably missing the point here.

[Hugo]

What are your reasons for using one of these services at all?

They're bad because they will inevitably die, and then you won't know what someone was linking to. If you visit a webpage in ten years, with an ordinary link if it's dead you can try archive.org. If it's a shortened url and that's dead, then there's no hope.

No, if you ever use one, you should use the most popular one so that when it dies, it has the worst possible effect and people stop using the damn things.