URL shortener Tr.im’s demise: Social web is house of cards

trimTr.im, a service that offered users a way to shorten Web links so that they fit into short Twitter messages, has shut down, and its tens of thousands or more links could potentially stop working.

(Though in a message on its web site, the service is now guaranteeing the links will work at least until the end of this year.)

It’s just the latest worrying sign of vulnerability among many of the new services being built to support popular new sites like Twitter. Other Web sites that depend on them can suffer too: If the Tr.im links stop working, the sites being linked to may see their traffic fall away.

Last month, another URL-shortening service, Cligs, was hacked and its links were all redirected to a blog owned by the Orange Country Register’s Kevin Saban, which reportedly affected “millions of users.” And Twitter itself suffered from a hacker, when the email accounts of employees were overtaken, and many of its corporate documents and plans were revealed.

trim2Tr.im itself was an also-ran URL shortening service. Sites such as Bit.ly, which has been anointed as Twitter’s default URL shortener, and TinyURL, have many more users. But Tr.im’s demise has caused a brouhaha in tech circles, in part because the service’s British Columbia-based parent company, Nambu Network, bitterly pointed to Twitter’s practice of favoring Bit.ly. That action by Twitter, which is now sending huge traffic to Bit.ly, means the other smaller URL shortenening services are disadvantaged. The more links these services can offer, the better, because the data they can collect is considered rich: Information about what links people are using, and when, is valuable for advertisers and publishers.

The frustration with linking practices has grown lately, after a recent decision by another popular site, Digg, to redirect its shortURLs to its own site (meaning that if someone uses a URL shortener to link to your story on Digg, it sends traffic to a Digg landing page, not to your site). Some fear that other URL services will take similar action. And now top bloggers are complaining that Twitter is keeping them from seeing their old tweets (Twitter only lets you see your most recent few thousand tweets; if you Tweet a lot, there’s a chance you won’t be able to see your older ones ever again), and that the Twitter follower numbers are distorted and inaccurate.

In other words, the rules of the social web are still being made up on the fly, and if you run a Web business, or are dependent on the Web for traffic, you should be aware of the risk in relying on things like URL shorteners. One trick: Build your own URL shortening service.

For now though, Darwinism will rule. Bit.ly has apparently reached out and offered to host Tr.im’s URL mappings starting tomorrow, though with Tr.im’s bitterness about Twitter’s treatment, it’s unclear whether Tr.im will accept.

[Image credit: Alex Clark]

Next Story:
Previous Story:

Tags: ,

Photo of Matt Marshall

About the Author, Matt Marshall

Matt Marshall is editor and CEO of VentureBeat. Follow him on Twitter at @mmarshall, and follow VentureBeat on Twitter at @venturebeat.

  • Pete
    I think it's just a matter of supply and demand. There's only a need for so many URL shorteners, so it's inevitable that some might fail, especially if they are still trying to get market share. The same goes with just about every web site. If you're not offering something unique or better to attract customers away from your competitors, then why would people use you instead of the one they were using? so tr.im is shorter than bit.ly by one character, that's obviously not enough... it's kind of like the joke from "Something about Mary" with the 7minute abs vs 8 minute abs video.
  • sample032
    "I think it's just a matter of supply and demand."

    Supply and demand is about commodities, not [almost] infinitely scalable services. The companies, themselves, are affected by supply and demand. There are lots of them out there, no one wants to buy them, so they're not worth much. Contrast this to Facebook; there's only one Facebook, and everyone wants a piece.

    "If you're not offering something unique or better to attract customers away from your competitors, then why would people use you instead of the one they were using?"

    You wouldn't get people to switch, but look at it the other way: there's no reason a new user would prefer one over the other.
  • Be sure to read John Borthwick's response to this on our blog post, which I did just RT via twitter for those that follow me:

    @bitly: 301Working: http://bit.ly/kqoa9
  • there is no need for url shorteners, period. we might as well better use numbers to refer to websites but how about just returning to good old fashioned urls? it is already getting complicated: some other services already claim to copy tr.im links for future reference. others suggest creating a directory of short links.

    whatever happened to the web, is it going to be dumbed down completely?
  • Test
    hello
  • sample032
    So much commentary, but so little on the most important part: "There is no way for us to monetize URL shortening -- users won't pay for it..." Bit.ly has the same problem, only more users, so it's losing money even faster.
  • I'm new to the blogging business, and I'm really not familiar with this topic. I know that the shorter the domain names are, the better. However, I can't understand What's the point of shortening the URL???
    Looking forwards to some reply.
  • I think if the content you offered is important and interested enough. Thanks for sharing, man.
  • Sky
    Great Work.I'd like the thank the blog owner for posting it.
    Great Comments. I'd like to thank the readers for sharing more helpful and relevant information.
  • matt
    I have been using http://dr.tl and I'm able to track click thru's. they don't have any ads and i wonder if thy will be privately funded.
blog comments powered by Disqus