It all comes down to owning your namespace. You are only able to fully control what's happening with your links if you own the domain name and run your own URL shortener on it. Anybody who's considering Twitter as an important part of their business or personal brand should start thinking about customising their short URLs. Here's a list of 10 tools to run an URL shortener on your own domain: http://iwantmyname.com/blog/2009/08/10-tools-to...
tallfreak
· 4 months ago
URL shorteners should only be used for one-time things like status updates, sending a cool link to a friend, etc. I would never use them as a permanent bookmark or referred link from my website. That's just laziness not to use the whole URL in that situation.
I agree. I think a decentralized, distributed model where people host their own URL shorteners is the way to go, like Dave Winer has been discussing. Here's probably his earliest post on the topic:
Instead of just a few services to rely on, you'd have more of a power-law distribution (yes, I'm thinking of Shirky). There would of course be some power users who shorten more on their domain, but the possibility for a massive loss of short URLs would be greatly diminished.
@Vrypan: Thanks for those links. I'd recommend people check this post, referred to in the second link:
I had not heard of urlBorg.com before this. That's an interesting approach, but it's still got a single point of vunerability in the urlBorg server. If urlBorg dies, the webmasters using the service may "own" a list of links, but they have to come up with their own technical solution for implementing them. It's a weak insurance policy, at best.
A really robust system would require webmasters to run their own "shortening servers" that sites like urlBorg would communicate with via APIs, so that a shortened link can be created via urlBorg, via the local server, or via any other shortener that supports the API. The end result would be that people could use any compatible service to shorten a URI and receive a shortened link on the webmaster's local server.
This would be a difficult system to monetize, though, so it's probably not going to happen.
vrypan
· 4 months ago
Michael, a webmaster having the mapping of (short,long) URLs and that live in his own domain, could easily write a redirect script in any scripting language. All it takes is enter the pairs in a DB table, read the first one and redirect to the second one. (In order to keep the links working, they don't have to create a full URL shortener that is able to create new short links).
But you are right, urlborg should provide a couple of example implementations, at least in PHP. I'll look into it.
Michael Bauser
· 3 months ago
A reference implemetation of the "insurance" script is an excellent idea. You should definitely do that.
simoncrabb
· 4 months ago
I'm not surprised some will be shutting down. I just don't get the business model.
I should have read this link before commenting on the other one, haha. But we're on the same page. Good stuff.
Stephen Newton
· 4 months ago
I followed your link, Vrypan, but didn't see anything about a business plan. That is, how will these services ever develop an income stream? At the moment, as Enrico hints below, they appear to funded by venture capitalists hoping to see them on before the cash runs out. But why should anyone buy up a failing URL shortening service?
Enrico Foschi
· 4 months ago
"the move would reassure critics who say that all URL shorteners are not to be trusted because they could close down at any time."
I would say all URL shorteners that HAVE NOT a clear revenue model and just base their whole marketing on "being bought" by Twitter, x or y.
wecandobiz
· 4 months ago
I agree. And this isn't a new idea. I've worked in the software industry for 23 years and I lost count of the number of struggling companies I've worked for that were hopeful that Microsoft would like their technology and snap them up. It never happened for any of them, but at least there was a likelihood it might as Microsoft HAD the money to do it if they'd wished.
That Twitter, a company making no money, would buy any failing company without any real users or a revenue stream either reads like the opening pages of Corporate Suicide For Dummies.
I'd say use http://linkr.tv to shorten out your lengthy URL's spread the good wealth around to the smaller outfits. Make sure they are able to migrate their URL's in the event they go under... simples!
Jon Stringer
· 4 months ago
"Bit.ly might simply be to buy Tr.im for a small amount: the move would reassure critics who say that all URL shorteners are not to be trusted because they could close down at any time".
Would be the best way out for all wouldnt it?
JP
Michael Bauser
· 4 months ago
Not for all. If Bit.ly buys a failing competitor, all you've done is change the Bad Business Plan from "sell it to Twitter" to "sell it to Bit.ly," and Bit.ly finds itself in the position of being its competitors (free) insurance plan. Where's the profit in that? After all, there's a hell of a lot of stupid URL-shortnerners that are going to implode in the next few years.
Jon Stringer
· 4 months ago
Good Point!
sokoloff
· 4 months ago
How is buying the service for a small amount reassuring that the next case that comes up will also be taken over without service interruption? It seems that if the amount is small, someone (including tr.im's owners) could decide that the domain name was worth more than that, or that they'd make more money taking advantage of all the inbound links to direct them to affiliate programs or otherwise monetizing the traffic (for a short time) rather than sell for a few thousand dollars. I agree that it's a good move for one of tr.im's competitors to buy them, and that's the classiest exit for trim as well, but it hardly gives long-term warm and fuzzies.
Jon Stringer
· 4 months ago
Hi Skoloff
Only best way out for all because those Tr.im links would not go dead advatage for those who have incoming links from Tr.im and Bit.ly would gain more users.
Fair play though! Alothough "small amount" could be a bad choice of words it would be better than just closing it down.
I just copied the qutoe from the post. I really couldnt care less if critics are "reassured" or not lol.
Michael Bauser
· 4 months ago
According to TechCrunch, Bit.ly has approximately twenty times the traffic that Tr.im does. They don't really need to buy Tr.im's userbase. They'll probably get most of Tr.im's users for free, anyway, since Bit.ly is Twitter's default, and Tr.im's announcement all but declared Bit.ly the "winner."
maruxz
· 4 months ago
If my project http://urloo.com won't succeed, I will know whom to sell the links :) Great job! Good attitude.
indhyan
· 4 months ago
thanks for the information, its really very useful for me... thank u once again
sbit connections
· 4 months ago
This site is very useful to all the web developers, thanks for the owner
Playster.org
· 4 months ago
They're not saving tr.im, they're expanding their own reach. No? Maybe the title's off a bit.
robe1221
· 4 months ago
This isn't the first time some social oriented website/service has shut down. And it probably won't be the last. I like the idea of creating your own short URL service but with as many users out there, there can only be so many 4-5 letter domain names out there.....at some point it will become a huge PITA to have your own short domain and your other domains.
Basically, this is the law of economics.....there is no guarantee that your service/business will be around at all tomorrow, you have to do the best you can.
Zedo Mann
· 4 months ago
Dang, maybe I'll just switch over to Bit.ly anyway tho.
HenryGale
· 4 months ago
Why is this a big deal? URL Shorteners will die out once Twitter starts declining as MySpace did, and as Facebook is.
The point of short urls is that they are short and temporary and used on twitter.
If they stopped working, big deal.
HenryGale
· 4 months ago
Twitter won't buy any of these URL shorteners. They won't have the money because they'll leave their business model too late to ever make a profit.
Lee Mathews
· 4 months ago
"the move would reassure critics who say that all URL shorteners are not to be trusted because they could close down at any time."
I don't see why this would be true. Why would we assume that ANY url truncator that shuts down will be bought out and rescued? There's still good reason to be cautious.
dave
· 4 months ago
I would not go along with this.
Much better solution -- the users pool their resources and "save" tr.im.
Or even better yet -- Twitter finally allows the users to attach a URL -- of any length -- to a tweet, obviating the need for url-shorteners. I feel fairly confident that technologists at all companies, even those at bit.ly, will agree this is the best solution.
URL-shorteners are at best a temporary workaround for a limit Twitter shouldn't have. Imho.
Michael Bauser
· 4 months ago
I disagree. Most users are idiots. The ones who try to "save" a company are usually self-involved idiots. A user-run tr.im would be underfunded, badly-run, and have no business plan.
kosso
· 4 months ago
I agree. The only reason and place that Twitter should need to shorten a link is in a mobile SMS. The websites and clients (even the mobile ones) dont *need* to be under 140 characters.
But I would say that the community acquiring trim would be problematic. Who would run it? When I built a shortener at urlb.at I found it got pumped and hit full of spam by countless bots all day every day.
I have all but given up on it.
But I have built my own shortener for phreadz ( phz.in ) - which ONLY points to phreadz.com post full urls. I have found this to be VERY useful, as it means I can change the url structure, if need be, and none of the short urls will break.
raphaël
· 4 months ago
I agree. This workaround is only valuable for sms. A sms is everything except a long-term ressource. Twitter offers other meta-datas around the tweet, such as the tool used to publish the tweet. It's so obvious that they could deploy a url-shortener embeded with metadata in 2 days, such as " hey guys, just found this website, have a look..." The status would be better used and twitter should have to make it work well for sms only.
And bit.ly should have to redefine his business model.
PhilipCamacho
· 4 months ago
Why doesn't Twitter have their own shortener?
Avatar X
· 4 months ago
Maybe it failed because of who owned it was completely naive?... the owners are the same guys from Nambu that decided to go with such a service opening beyond the users of its client. That was the mistake, since they expected Tr.im users to be Nambu users and then hoped for monetization to come to them later. A big flaw on that master plan is that we are talking about a Mac only app and that they were quoted as saying that they didn't had the resources to produce a Windows version of their app and lost pretty much all momentum, since most of the buzz they had was from people expecting a Windows version of Nambu....They would have done fine if they had kept tr.im tied to be used only by Nambu users.
bhartzer
· 4 months ago
I I were tr.im I would definitely take them up on that offer.
Solve Marketing
· 4 months ago
Would it be a useful idea for platforms with such a need to have their own shortener? It would simply be a convenient benefit to it's users. It's not as if I care what the shortener says (looks like), so why not? Could be a continuation of a branding philosophy for companies.
RexDixon
· 4 months ago
Be sure to read John Borthwick's response to this on our blog post, which I did just RT via twitter for those that follow me:
Hey, this is Chris from Jolt Media Group (jmg.com), parent owner of Linkbee. We are also trying to reach out to Tr.im without any success. We are in position to acquire Tr.im, but it has been impossible to get in touch with them. I question the validity of them actually shutting down. Possibly a big domainer made an offer they cant refuse to redirect all the traffic?
bpm140
· 4 months ago
Earlier today John Borthwick at betaworks / bit.ly posted a great call to action regarding 301works. We at Gnip have offered to partner with them and provide all the engineering support and bear all the hosting costs to make 301works a reality in days, not weeks. This is hugely needed and I'm sure that betaworks and Gnip combined (along with other foward-thinking companies like awe.sm) can get it up and running ASAP.
Eric Marcoullier CEO, Gnip
Infernocloud
· 4 months ago
Imagine if Google provided their own short URL for every result. That's as good as an everlasting short URL as you can get.
bustedkeys
· 4 months ago
whew! lucky i don't use tr.im!
Paul OFlaherty
· 4 months ago
Makes a very strong case for hosting your own URL shorting script on your own site.
daver
· 3 months ago
They are free services that make no money. Let me repeat that. They are free services that make no money. Unless they can figure out a way to pay for the server and bandwidth costs they will all go out of business.
Your best option is to create your own.
Just sayin'
vrypan
· 3 months ago
I keep hearing the same thing "create your own". This is useless. Do you care more about your links to other pages, or links to your pages? In the second case, it doesn't matter if you have your own shortener: what matters is which one(s) people linking to your pages use.
daver
· 3 months ago
That is true, creating your own does only solve part of the problem. Think about the numbers of links that are created on these services though. If everyone (well not everyone but a good number) suggested links for their own site or used their own services it would prevent a few sites/companies from creating a problem. You cant force people to use any service but you can at least try (Amazon has one http://blog.go2.me/2009/04/amazon-has-integrate... )
All Comments
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2008/01/16/aDe...
Instead of just a few services to rely on, you'd have more of a power-law distribution (yes, I'm thinking of Shirky). There would of course be some power users who shorten more on their domain, but the possibility for a massive loss of short URLs would be greatly diminished.
@Vrypan: Thanks for those links. I'd recommend people check this post, referred to in the second link:
http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/11/19/cre...
A really robust system would require webmasters to run their own "shortening servers" that sites like urlBorg would communicate with via APIs, so that a shortened link can be created via urlBorg, via the local server, or via any other shortener that supports the API. The end result would be that people could use any compatible service to shorten a URI and receive a shortened link on the webmaster's local server.
This would be a difficult system to monetize, though, so it's probably not going to happen.
But you are right, urlborg should provide a couple of example implementations, at least in PHP. I'll look into it.
I would say all URL shorteners that HAVE NOT a clear revenue model and just base their whole marketing on "being bought" by Twitter, x or y.
That Twitter, a company making no money, would buy any failing company without any real users or a revenue stream either reads like the opening pages of Corporate Suicide For Dummies.
Ian Hendry
CEO, WeCanDo.BIZ
http://www.wecando.biz
Would be the best way out for all wouldnt it?
JP
I agree that it's a good move for one of tr.im's competitors to buy them, and that's the classiest exit for trim as well, but it hardly gives long-term warm and fuzzies.
Only best way out for all because those Tr.im links would not go dead advatage for those who have incoming links from Tr.im and Bit.ly would gain more users.
Fair play though! Alothough "small amount" could be a bad choice of words it would be better than just closing it down.
I just copied the qutoe from the post. I really couldnt care less if critics are "reassured" or not lol.
Basically, this is the law of economics.....there is no guarantee that your service/business will be around at all tomorrow, you have to do the best you can.
The point of short urls is that they are short and temporary and used on twitter.
If they stopped working, big deal.
I don't see why this would be true. Why would we assume that ANY url truncator that shuts down will be bought out and rescued? There's still good reason to be cautious.
Much better solution -- the users pool their resources and "save" tr.im.
Or even better yet -- Twitter finally allows the users to attach a URL -- of any length -- to a tweet, obviating the need for url-shorteners. I feel fairly confident that technologists at all companies, even those at bit.ly, will agree this is the best solution.
URL-shorteners are at best a temporary workaround for a limit Twitter shouldn't have. Imho.
But I would say that the community acquiring trim would be problematic. Who would run it?
When I built a shortener at urlb.at I found it got pumped and hit full of spam by countless bots all day every day.
I have all but given up on it.
But I have built my own shortener for phreadz ( phz.in ) - which ONLY points to phreadz.com post full urls. I have found this to be VERY useful, as it means I can change the url structure, if need be, and none of the short urls will break.
And bit.ly should have to redefine his business model.
@bitly: 301Working: http://bit.ly/kqoa9
Eric Marcoullier
CEO, Gnip
Your best option is to create your own.
Just sayin'