Tinyurl’s are an essential online tool (leave out the fineprint)
This post may be a bit of a personal gripe but I think I have a point and perhaps print journalists will adapt their thinking when it comes to quoting online points of reference.
With the advent of complicated site structures and navigation that takes one into the deep depths of a website the url (address) links have become longer and more complicated. There are a few ways of quickly modifying these addresses by generating unique ‘one time’ tiny urls or tiny links. This means that any url link can be shortened - this is very useful for notes on twitter or e-mails - by using a smaller url creation tool you also lessen the risk of dropping / missing certain characters that could render the link broken.
The following links are to three different methods that will allow you to create instant shorter urls there are also extensions or plug-ins available for various web browsers (this means that tinyurl creation is just a ‘right-click’ action.)
It’s a great tool for online communication I don’t think anyone can dispute that. What I’m not sure about however is why tinyurls are being quoted in newspaper columns??? (specifically in the Sunday Times and The Times.) Let me point out here that the awesome multimedia team at The Times were forward-thinking enough to create their own timesurl firefox extension, my issue is with the print editions.
Let’s look at a very basic example to illustrate my point, consider that a typical tinyurl looks like this: http://tinyurl.com/32djv4, consider that this tinyurl represents www.facebook.com - in PRINT which address (url) is easier to recall? The non-tinyurl because it represents something memorable and more unique. The numbers mixed with letters only serve to confuse the issue and encourage number-dyslexia.
My point is that I don’t understand why print mediums are utilising tinyurls - rather use the branded web address and if it’s too long then instruct readers to follow the X menu to reach Y for example.
I think that technology is created to suit a certain medium and in my opinion the tinyurl generators do not lend themselves to print, in fact it’s likely that your average 5 hour a week web user and avid newspaper reader is currently of the opinion that the same websites are being quoted each week!
Good observation Melissa. They’re probably trying to keep up with the “coolness”.
OR
Are probably directly quoting in which case they might not know what the link is they’re publishing.
Hi Melissa. As the creator of TimesURL and Tinylink.co.za I have say that this solution is there for more than just an online space.
From a personal perspective I prefer seeing tiny links in a paper because otherwise I’ll forget (or not even bother) going to the website in the first place.
One classic example of this is when YouTube links are printer in a paper and/or magazine. It’s virtually impossible to retype the abstract URL that YouTube uses and that’s where timesurl and the other really come into play. It’s never longer than 6 characters and it’s easy to type.
Up until traditional publications started using these for links in the printed material I was never visiting any links. I find it much more intuitive this way.
@Justin - great work on those developments - it’s really changing the way SA shares online info.
You’ve got valid points, particularly with YouTube. I think there needs to be a balance however - we’re coming from a relatively tech-savvy place, my concern is about the average reader / web user and my feeling is that unlike us, many of them are ’skipping’ over valid links.
Like most things it’s a personal preference / education issue - it’s a relatively new development in print so time will tell how effective it’ll be and how quickly the man on the street catches on.
[...] this post I’ve given the issue a great deal of thought. Justin had a very valid comment on my previous post and I’ve had a relaxing weekend filled with newspapers and magazines. I’ve just read a [...]