Hmm, I thought ICANN wasn't allowing single digit domain names anymore? They even took back several that were issued in the 90's. Oh well.
Brandon_Sheley
· 3 months ago
I saw this a little bit ago when I was sending a link I would still rather use bit.ly
macewan
· 3 months ago
j.mp/macewan =)
Jason Rukus
· 3 months ago
You know at first this seems a bit silly but I have to side with a we did it because we could mentality.
Justin Thorp
· 3 months ago
Was clicking on Bit.ly links earlier and it was popping me over to the j.mp links but it was broken. Was really weird. Could definitely tell that they were amidst the deploy.
dyegov
· 3 months ago
bit.ly still seems better to me. It's more recognisable and 2 characters is not much of an improvement.
Sanders Design
· 3 months ago
I wonder how much they paid for the domain, will it make good business sense?
Helen
· 3 months ago
wow, thanks. At least this would save us 2 more characters. I love it :)
Donagh Mc Sweeney
· 3 months ago
Ah come one! Seriously!
Hejazi
· 3 months ago
It's just an alias to bit.ly, so if you replace "bit.ly" in any url with "j.mp" it'll work! and vice versa.
jb
· 3 months ago
I'll take 2 characters. Why not? It kind of reminds me of the spinal tap scene where Nigel proudly points out how his amp's volume goes to 11. Jm.p allows you to go "2 characters shorter". Smart move since every character counts on twitter and other sites (e.g., LinkedIn Updates, Facebook, etc.)
blehhh
· 3 months ago
Pointless
plasticmadness
· 3 months ago
I guess my comment will look silly, but honestly I don't really have a clue about how do url shorteners work. Anyway: isn't it logical to suppose that the url's will get longer in time? (there's only so much combinations you can have with a given number of characters, right?) So what will they do when the short urls are no longer short enough for the sake of saving characters (specially for Twitter, obviously)? Will they reset all the old short url's? Or, perhaps, create another url shortener domain, like j.mp? When j.mp is no longer short enough, they'll come up with another one, and so on... I use is.gd when I need shorter than bit.ly. I used to like tr.im, but it's fate is still indetermined.
Edward Sanchez
· 3 months ago
with 10 digits + 26 lowercase letters + 26 upper case letters, and 5 characters you have nearly a billion possible combinations. If they used 6 characters, that means 56 billion possible combinations. In X years time when they run out, they just need to add another character or get another domain like b.mp, r.mp, lv.ly, l.dy, l.mp, and they get billions more out of each. Plus, all that needs to happen for URL shorteners to die off is for twitter to allow embedding a link with however many characters you want into your message without taking it from your character count.
PowerInside
· 3 months ago
I think I'll wait till when it comes down till 2 characters
Don Salva
· 3 months ago
Or you could go with u.nu ( http://u.nu/ ), which has been around quite a bit.
davidakhoa
· 3 months ago
That's cool, I guess. To me, there is such thing as 'too short'. I was actually happy with TinyURL, then it switched to Bit.Ly and just when I got used to it, this comes along.
I just wished there was some way on Twitter itself (without installing an addon or whatever) that we know what we're clicking. Like hover your pointer over the little link and it would show the full link or the title of the page we're going to or something. I'm sure it'll be an official feature in the future...
bit.ly seems to have missed the point. The character savings could have come not only from the shorter domain name, but also from the unique string that comes after, if they had started from scratch. As it is, they're just using this to save 2 chars on existing URL's - do you really see anybody going back and re-editing their tweets to take advantage of the newfound 2 chars?
A bit of a waste of time if you ask me. They should have just launched it as a new, separate service. Would it be so bad if people abandoned bit.ly? It's not really a compelling brand as such, so there wouldn't be much pain involved as, say, if Facebook tried something similar (rebranding).
All Comments
I would still rather use bit.ly
I love it :)
If they used 6 characters, that means 56 billion possible combinations.
In X years time when they run out, they just need to add another character or get another domain like b.mp, r.mp, lv.ly, l.dy, l.mp, and they get billions more out of each.
Plus, all that needs to happen for URL shorteners to die off is for twitter to allow embedding a link with however many characters you want into your message without taking it from your character count.
I just wished there was some way on Twitter itself (without installing an addon or whatever) that we know what we're clicking. Like hover your pointer over the little link and it would show the full link or the title of the page we're going to or something. I'm sure it'll be an official feature in the future...
http://twitter.com/davidakhoa
A bit of a waste of time if you ask me. They should have just launched it as a new, separate service. Would it be so bad if people abandoned bit.ly? It's not really a compelling brand as such, so there wouldn't be much pain involved as, say, if Facebook tried something similar (rebranding).