# Is tinyurl.com OK to use? How about tiny.cc? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 7, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680 "2014-10-07T19:40:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/1 "2014-10-07T19:40:35Z")
[Tinyurl.com](http://Tinyurl.com) seems like a convenient way to create simple URL’s. I loaded one of its pages itself, rather than the one it redirects to and see a complicated script with calls to several websites, including [loadus.exelator.com](http://loadus.exelator.com), [go.affec.tv](http://go.affec.tv). [clients.bluecava.com](http://clients.bluecava.com), [bcp.crwdcntrl.net](http://bcp.crwdcntrl.net). :eek: I Googled the first of these domains and see discussion about whether it’s malware or not. I’ll guess that [tinyurl.com](http://tinyurl.com) isn’t malware per se, but feels free to scribble cookies on your machine in return for providing its wonderful free service. Looking for an alternative, I tried tiny.cc. It also redirects correctly, but when I try to load the page itself (using a cygwin command _url2file_) I get no output! What gives? Are these facilities OK to use? Is there a better alternative? (Other than the intended URL itself – nevermind why I’d prefer not to use that.) ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/2 "2014-10-07T19:47:12Z")
I believe that tiny.cc does its redirecting by returning an HTTP 301 “Permanently Moved”. So there’s no actual page content returned, and your browser knows to navigate to the new location provided. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/3 "2014-10-07T20:09:21Z")
Tinyurl was one of the first. It has since been eclipsed by bit.ly, Twitter’s default URL shortener. Me, I prefer just having one omniscient overlord, so I use Google’s goo.gl ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/4 "2014-10-07T20:23:38Z")
Thanks for the prompt and useful responses! > [@borschevsky](#): > > I believe that tiny.cc does its redirecting by returning an HTTP 301 “Permanently Moved”. So there’s no actual page content returned, and your browser knows to navigate to the new location provided. OK. It looks like this is the way to go. Like tinurl, it lets you specify the link’s name. > [@Reply](#): > > Tinyurl was one of the first. It has since been eclipsed by bit.ly, Twitter’s default URL shortener. Me, I prefer just having one omniscient overlord, so I use Google’s goo.gl I tried these also. goo.gl returns 301 “Permanently Moved” just like tiny.cc, but also returns a very short page with a simple link (in case the 301 error is ignored?) bit.ly rejected the URL I wanted to encode – perhaps because it’s passing arguments. And neither it, nor goo.gl showed an obvious way to specify the link’s name. So _tiny.cc_ it will be! ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/5 "2014-10-07T20:26:33Z")
I prefer tinyurl because it’s case insensitive. When you’re giving an address over the phone, you don’t have to worry about “Capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g.” ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/6 "2014-10-07T21:11:17Z")
There are now many of these URL shortening services. I used to use is.gd for Twitter posts before Twitter built [t.co](http://t.co) shortening into itself. I have never heard of anyone who uses any of them to shorten a URL of their own having any trouble with them. Using one created by someone else, however, can be problematic. You cannot tell just by looking at the shortened link what site it is going to take you to, so shorteners can be used to disguise links to things such as attack sites. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/7 "2014-10-07T21:34:37Z")
In general there are good reasons to [avoid URL shorteners](http://joshua.schachter.org/2009/04/on-url-shorteners) entirely. If you must use one, [tinyurl.com](http://tinyurl.com), goo.gl and bit.ly are reputable and carry a minimal risk. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/8 "2014-10-07T23:53:02Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > you don’t have to worry about “Capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g.” …and if you did you wouldn’t admit it. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/9 "2014-10-08T00:16:38Z")
> [@tellyworth](#): > > In general there are good reasons to [avoid URL shorteners](http://joshua.schachter.org/2009/04/on-url-shorteners) entirely. There can also be reasons to use them. My reasons are not relevant to my question. > [@tellyworth](#): > > If you must use one, [tinyurl.com](http://tinyurl.com), goo.gl and bit.ly are reputable and carry a minimal risk. goo.gl doesn’t seem to have a way for me to specify the name – did I miss somthing? I notice you exclude tiny.cc – the one that seemed precisely best of all, as I explained above. Any reason for the exclusion? The “avoid” page you link to makes no special mention of it. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/10 "2014-10-08T00:34:27Z")
All of those services use a 30x redirect. Bit.ly and Goo.gl have sufficient infrastructure and financial backing to survive a DDoS or recover from a hack. [Tinyurl.com](http://Tinyurl.com) has been so widely used for so long that the internet has a vested interest in protecting it. Bit.ly and [Tinyurl.com](http://Tinyurl.com) are archived by [urlte.am](http://urlte.am). They’re unlikely to shut down in the foreseeable future. Tiny.cc seems to be run by one person, and is hosted on a single server. I wasn’t singling it out, just didn’t see anything that recommends it as an ideal choice, or any better than hundreds of others. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/11 "2014-10-08T01:15:52Z")
> [@tellyworth](#): > > All of those services use a 30x redirect… > Tiny.cc seems to be run by one person, and is hosted on a single server. I wasn’t singling it out, just didn’t see anything that recommends it as an ideal choice, or any better than hundreds of others. 😕 Did you read my posts? [tinyurl.com](http://tinyurl.com) does _ **not** _ do an error redirect. Instead it loads a complex script involving several websites. I assume it collects data and/or sends cookies and is somehow reimbursed by advertisers. This seems like reason not to inflict it on any intended link-clicker (though I suppose similar horrendous scripts and cookies are involved just clicking through a few news stories). bit.ly does not allow arguments in its result. Did I do something wrong? Does goo.gl allow the creator to specify the name? Perhaps I need to create an account to do that – I already have several Google accounts and they’re mostly pains-in-the-ass. Tiny.cc does allow user-specified name, no questions asked. For my simple transient purpose, tiny.cc looks like the best answer. Still, I’m surprised that you made a recommendation while managing to completely ignore my criteria. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/12 "2014-10-08T01:57:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > [tinyurl.com](http://tinyurl.com) does _ **not** _ do an error redirect. Instead it loads a complex script involving several websites. I assume it collects data and/or sends cookies and is somehow reimbursed by advertisers. This seems like reason not to inflict it on any intended link-clicker (though I suppose similar horrendous scripts and cookies are involved just clicking through a few news stories). > > bit.ly does not allow arguments in its result. Did I do something wrong? > > Does goo.gl allow the creator to specify the name? Perhaps I need to create an account to do that – I already have several Google accounts and they’re mostly pains-in-the-ass. Tiny.cc does allow user-specified name, no questions asked. Ugh. It looks like [Tinyurl.com](http://Tinyurl.com) _sometimes_ sends a 302 redirect, and other times uses in-page meta redirects with Javascript. That seems to have changed in the last couple of months. I saw a 302 when I tested. That’s the trouble here: there’s no way to be sure if a URL shortener might do something different in future, or if they might already do something different for some users. What do you mean by “arguments in its result”? I don’t see user-specified names listed in your OP. As far as I know goo.gl won’t do that. tiny.cc sends cookies, incidentally. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/13 "2014-10-08T02:30:35Z")
> [@tellyworth](#): > > What do you mean by “arguments in its result”? I want (very arbitrary example) tiny.cc/bob-birthday-reminder to point to [birthday.com](http://birthday.com/reminder.htm?when=Tuesday/who=Bob/age=50) (The true URL will be visible to anyone who clicks it, but I want to conceal it from search engines. My need isn’t urgent, but as I looked into it I became idly curious. I’ve learned a lot just in this discussion. I wish I knew a good book or website to familiarize myself with Internet complexities – I have a huge variety of questions 🙂 – but most sources either give too much detail or too little.) > [@tellyworth](#): > > tiny.cc sends cookies, incidentally. Ouch! Even so, that’s got to be more benign than [tinyurl.com](http://tinyurl.com), no? What is its complex script doing? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/14 "2014-10-08T18:05:12Z")
Once again an internet rule of thumb applies: If you aren’t paying for the service, you aren’t the customer; you’re the product being sold. All of the url shorteners exist to derive revenue from the information gained when you create the short url or when someone else clicks through it. You’re not going to escape that. So the only issue remains which specific technology they use to obtain their value without overtly annoying you & your link-clickers too much. IOW - If your (the OP’s) objection is moral, no url shortener is any better than any other. If your objection is technological, we’d need to know which specific aspects of specific shoertener serves you object to and why. Given your avowed limited understanding of these things, I’m going to suggest any technological objection you have is likely ill-founded unless you’ve got a specific narrow test-case problem you’re needing to resolve. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/15 "2014-10-08T21:08:38Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I want (very arbitrary example) tiny.cc/bob-birthday-reminder to point to [birthday.com](http://birthday.com/reminder.htm?when=Tuesday/who=Bob/age=50) > > (The true URL will be visible to anyone who clicks it, but I want to conceal it from search engines. My need isn’t urgent, but as I looked into it I became idly curious. I’ve learned a lot just in this discussion. I wish I knew a good book or website to familiarize myself with Internet complexities – I have a huge variety of questions 🙂 – but most sources either give too much detail or too little.) > > Ouch! Even so, that’s got to be more benign than [tinyurl.com](http://tinyurl.com), no? What is its complex script doing? Wouldn’t it be simpler to add a robots.txt and tell search engines not to index that page to begin with? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/16 "2014-10-09T00:38:30Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > Wouldn’t it be simpler to add a robots.txt and tell search engines not to index that page to begin with? I suspect he wants to post something on a third party site (e.g. SDMB), and not have search engines harvest where the link is really going. Sure he could robots.txt HIS site. But not the e.g. SDMB. I suspect that’s a dead idea because Google, et al, already know about the url shortening services and they’ll dereference the shortened links to get to the real destination url while they’re spidering. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/17 "2014-10-09T21:12:15Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > It has since been eclipsed by bit.ly, Twitter’s default URL shortener. Bit.ly is not Twitter’s default URL shortener. ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/18 "2014-10-09T22:23:48Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Bit.ly is not Twitter’s default URL shortener. Used to be before they made their own. My bad. Point was it’s super popular. Or used to be. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-tinyurl-com-ok-to-use-how-about-tiny-cc/700680/19 "2014-10-09T22:29:31Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Bit.ly is not Twitter’s default URL shortener. Right. It is no longer necessary to shorten links in Twitter. You can put any link in a Twitter post and it will count as 22 characters no matter how long it actually is, and will be redirected via Twitter’s own shortening service, **[t.co](http://t.co)**. Some people on Twitter still do not seem to have caught on to this and are still, redundantly, using other shorteners, which will presumably send their link first through the **[t.co](http://t.co)** redirecter, then through the **bit.ly** (or whatever) one, before it reaches its target. **Bit.ly** was never “official” or “default”, but it wasoften used by Twitterers back in the day when the length of a URL mattered to character count, but so were lots of other shorteners, many of which gave shorter results than **bit.ly**. As I already mentioned, I used to use **is.gd** , which I discovered because an account I followed used it.