I'll second that. The whole point of the internet (at least as I see it) of linking relevant documents together is pretty much lost when those links are fragile shortened urls. Maybe if there was a markup, similar to the img alt tag, that allowed you to say "Here's the short one, if that doesn't work, here's the full one".

The real issue, as I see it, is that people solved the wrong problem. I see this a lot at my new job, where they created bigger problems for themselves by asking the wrong questions and therefor solving the wrong problem. Isn't the main reason people use shortened URLs so that they can link to things on sites like Twitter where every character counts? If that is the case then the real problem isn't that URLs are too long, it's that Twitter counts them against you, instead of allowing people to put actual hyperlinks (you know, <a href="xyz">Title</a>) in their tweets. If the only part that counted against your character count was the Title section then we wouldn't have this problem. They could even simplify the markup somehow to make it more user friendly then actual HTML.

If I've misunderstood the problem that URL shorteners are trying to solve then I apologize for my off the mark rant.

Thanks Mark

Mark I think the problem is the 140 character limit.

The HTML markup would be included in that. Twitter takes a website address and turns it into a link when it is displayed on their website.

But if a Tweet is sent via a mobile phone, they are limited by the 160 (I think that is the SMS limit). So HTML markup counts.

Which is why using a shorter URL is key.

Wait, you're telling me that "the best new protocol" and "the future of the internet" is being held back by the telcos, the most hated, slow moving, bureaucratic companies on earth?

Sounds like we need push email.

The real reason why people use URL shorteners is because they can instantly track how many people have clicked on their link.

For PR2.0 whores, it's addictive.

Twitter's 140 character limit was just the original excuse. Now everyone who is selling stuff loves the ability to track every click and see how their propagate over the "social graph". If they could, they'd force you to install a Firefox plug-in so they know what you are looking at and why you didn't click on their link...

That makes sense, in a weird, twisted, PR sort of way.

I think it's the same as the argument against URLs -- anything you link to may end up going away in the future. Hasn't destroyed the Web yet.

Yes, but when a shortener dies, neither the linker nor the linkee can fix the problem, making the problem worse.

When the linkee dies, the linker can't fix that either (short of linking to, say, archive.org -- which works regardless).

The linker can inspect a direct link to see where it was pointing, in order to find it on archive.org or to contact the linkee and notify them the link went down. If a shortener goes down, the linker only has the obfuscated url, and has to rely only on their memory to redirect the link.