Google has followed in the footsteps of Twitter by buying a Colombian internet address to use as a corporate URL shortener. Mountain View announced yesterday that it now owns g.co, which will only link to its official Google products. Twitter owns t.co, so Google's latest domain purchase is clearly intended to be added to the …
there's clearly too much of an IT angle in here: to the slightest bit of a marching powder reference!
Twitter should talk to someone in Italy
I'm sure the t.it domain is available.
"I'm sure the t.it domain is available."
I'm sure it isn't....
I don't understand this.
Why can't Twitter and the like adopt something like the [link][/link] tab used in BBCode and only include the words within the tag in the character count? That would also have the advantage that anyone hovering over the link would be able to see where it was pointing.
Too complicated for twats
Next thing, you'll be saying they can use this HTML programming language thingy.
I think a twat-free internet would be a good thing...
If someone establishes the 'off' domain then I can think of a short URL for facebook
Short & Gibberish or Long & Meaningful
Forgive me, but "g.co/sJHrk" is much harder to remember than "theregister" "google" or "ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere"...
My only regret...
...is that I have but one upvote to give this post. The URL shortener fad cannot die fast enough for my tastes.
I assume they'll be bidding on the above one ICANN opens up the TLDs.
...a reasonably short domain name, 0b1.us to use in my tweets, but http://0b1.us/a gets "shortened to http://t.co/WXdO4IZ
More sloppy stupid dumbing down
Should Twitter, Google and their customers (ie the advertisers, not you) really be that interested in people who are too stupid to type in a proper URL?
I become really depressed at the weekend when I witnessed somebody I know to be a constant facebook user start IE and get to the facebook site by typing "facebook" into Google (it's her home page) and clicking on the first link. That was stupid enough but this URL shortening thing looks even worse - how is it actually going to make anything easier for anyone? What exactly is wrong with remembering and/or bookmarking some proper URLs anyway?
Not sloppy or dumbing down.
If you have 140 characters for a post on Twatter, and you use 100 or more of those to post a URL you won't get to say much. Also, if you're posting it on your blog it's going to word-wrap like a bugger on phones and the like, or even get broken up on some devices.
As someone above pointed out, if you're just trying to get to a site or remember its URL then "theregister.co.uk" is a lot easier than g.co/ubv8457sh.
>really be that interested in people who are too stupid to type in a proper URL?
I agree with you and I have blogged about it at http://mywebsite.com/256_character_random_string_generated_my_CMS/article.html
easy solution for 140 twitter thing
"If you have 140 characters for a post on Twatter, and you use 100 or more of those to post a URL you won't get to say much."
That's a fault of twitter 140 characters is jusy way to small and twitter shouldn't couldn't these as characters bit wrap it into a <a ....>[title of page it links to]</a> and then all problems are solved
the moronically gifted
Isn't that exactly the type of person the advertisers are interested in?
Silvio Berlusconi owns that.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp