 |
 |
Following up on my original query, I did not have very many responses. * * 1 person used a locally designed one. 1 person said "I prefer tiny.cc to tiny.url as it makes the urls slightly shorter" 1 person uses bitly According to http://yi.tl/pages/urlshorteners.php, there are 398 live URL shorteners. Bearing in mind my specific purpose (which is to provide an easier way of accessing web pages from a *printed* book, so clicking on a URL, or cut and paste are not options), the services that came up most frequently on lists of 'best' or 'recommended' shorteners are: su.pr (from Stumble Upon & according to http://youngblah.com/7-best-url-shorteners-of-2012-and-their-benefits/ "one of the best on the market" goo.gl bity TinyURL budirl ls.gd cli.gs In the end, I have decided to go with bitly *Alan* Best wishes Alan Pritchard MPhil FCLIP Tel: +44 (0)1202 417477 On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Alan Pritchard <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > I would welcome the views of the group on URL shorteners. > > I am compiling a large print bibliography and am including URLs when > material is available online. > > Given the increasing complexity of URLs, I am considering using a > shortener, to help users, if they have to type the URL. The question of an > online edition is not settled, yet. > > Which is the best? I am aware of bitly, TinyURL and goo.gl. These seem to > be the bast known - although there are probably others. > > Do any of these have major disadvantages? > > *Alan* > > Best wishes > Alan Pritchard MPhil FCLIP > Tel: +44 (0)1202 417477 > >