Comments on: URL shorteners, an SEO disaster? http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters John McElborough's SEO blog: Always outnumbered, never outranked! Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:40:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Carlen Lea Lesser http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters#comment-6555 Carlen Lea Lesser Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:32:05 +0000 http://www.johnmcelborough.com/?p=287#comment-6555 I saw someone already said it but the key is that most URLs are 10x too long to use on Twitter. If they do fit, then you can't actually say anything about the link. There is also a benefit for brands (or brand like individuals) in being able to track on which links people click on, especially if they aren't linking to their own sites for any reason. I saw someone already said it but the key is that most URLs are 10x too long to use on Twitter. If they do fit, then you can’t actually say anything about the link.

There is also a benefit for brands (or brand like individuals) in being able to track on which links people click on, especially if they aren’t linking to their own sites for any reason.

]]> By: admin http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters#comment-1334 admin Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:40:47 +0000 http://www.johnmcelborough.com/?p=287#comment-1334 Absolutely right pete, using a url like that offline is just nuts! I've never really thought about any benefits which could come from using google own service. Would probably be niave to think they weren't using that data in some way Absolutely right pete, using a url like that offline is just nuts!

I’ve never really thought about any benefits which could come from using google own service. Would probably be niave to think they weren’t using that data in some way

]]> By: Simon Hibbott http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters#comment-1328 Simon Hibbott Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:32:09 +0000 http://www.johnmcelborough.com/?p=287#comment-1328 I'm inclined to agree. Where possible I use the full url, but where character limitations require I use a shortener - either bit.ly or goo.gl. The point Pete makes about the relative ease of remembering guardian.com/topic is also a compelling one. I’m inclined to agree. Where possible I use the full url, but where character limitations require I use a shortener – either bit.ly or goo.gl. The point Pete makes about the relative ease of remembering guardian.com/topic is also a compelling one.

]]> By: Pete http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters#comment-1230 Pete Mon, 17 Jan 2011 14:59:46 +0000 http://www.johnmcelborough.com/?p=287#comment-1230 I never use these and after thinking about your point on their servers going down/being hacked I'm even less likely to use them. Also for any offline material I certainly wouldn't use them, they may be less characters but they are not easy to remember or type in, a long URL based on real words is far easier to remember and type in to your browser as each word is one thing to remember rather than each character. The Guardian uses them in printed material which I find annoying especially when they could just set up redirects using their own domain e.g. guardian.com/topic is easier to remember than http://bit.ly/b0B1qT They do have uses (Twitter) but if I am going to sue on I would use the Google one (http://goo.gl), using them may hinder SEO but having all the short URLs you use listed by Google can’t be a bad thing (even if I couldn't prove it would be a good thing!) I never use these and after thinking about your point on their servers going down/being hacked I’m even less likely to use them. Also for any offline material I certainly wouldn’t use them, they may be less characters but they are not easy to remember or type in, a long URL based on real words is far easier to remember and type in to your browser as each word is one thing to remember rather than each character. The Guardian uses them in printed material which I find annoying especially when they could just set up redirects using their own domain e.g. guardian.com/topic is easier to remember than http://bit.ly/b0B1qT

They do have uses (Twitter) but if I am going to sue on I would use the Google one (http://goo.gl), using them may hinder SEO but having all the short URLs you use listed by Google can’t be a bad thing (even if I couldn’t prove it would be a good thing!)

]]> By: admin http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters#comment-660 admin Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:14:48 +0000 http://www.johnmcelborough.com/?p=287#comment-660 Possibly. In fact I think i might be missing the point of twitter altogether! My point is though most of these shortening services only save a few characters which for me makes them redundant. Possibly. In fact I think i might be missing the point of twitter altogether!

My point is though most of these shortening services only save a few characters which for me makes them redundant.

]]> By: Luke http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters#comment-632 Luke Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:39:12 +0000 http://www.johnmcelborough.com/?p=287#comment-632 I think you may be missing the point about Twitter being restricted to 140 characters. I think you may be missing the point about Twitter being restricted to 140 characters.

]]> By: Jonathan Stewart http://www.johnmcelborough.com/url-shorters#comment-548 Jonathan Stewart Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:27:15 +0000 http://www.johnmcelborough.com/?p=287#comment-548 Touche! Touche!

]]>