The risks of relying on web 2.0 services
One of the most prominent utilities that we now take for granted on the web [and to a lesser extent on mobile] is that of URL Shorteners. These services create a short url that redirect a user to the original destination whenever visited, sometimes with additional services inbetween such as collecting traffic statistics. The first well known service was tinyurl.com, but there are a range of other choices now including bit.ly and is.gd. Unfortunately tr.im - one of the relatively prominent services recently - has just announced that is to discontinue it’s service, and this has raised some debate about a potential over-reliance on URL Shorteners and indeed the risks of relying on web startup services on the whole. E-consultancy have a good summary of the debate - What’s bad for tr.im is good for bit.ly, recognising amongst other things that Bit.ly’s relationship with Twitter as it’s default URL Shortener has allowed Bit.ly to become the market leader and potentially the safest bet for the future.
From a user experience perspective there are also growing concerns that using URL shortening is a poor approach anyway. For example, Webmonkey suggested in April that, at the very least, one of the problems with shortened URLs is that you have no idea where they go. Additionally, as in the case of tr.im, if a URL shortening service closes down then [soon after] so all their links, because the cost of the bandwidth in redirecting all those URLs is one of the major overheads for such services. In an age of web semantics, better url schemas and a stronger focus on user experience, it does seem that the future for URL shorteners isn’t completely safe.








