[wp-forums] Proposal: No URL shorteners?

[Peter Westwood]

On 3 Jan 2011, at 01:11, Mika A Epstein wrote:

> Not for all links, mind you, but like if you're telling someone 'read this article for help', can anyone come up with a reason why THAT url should be bit.ly'd?
> 
> The possibility for unethical spammy linking runs wild in my head...
> 
> I can get someone doing it to obfuscate their own URL, but even then, I can see Google parsing those via the api's anyway, so it still shows up with link juice from Twitter and other sites.


Have we had any problems with this?

I don't see why we should be so harsh as to ban something if it isn't currently a problem.

url shorteners are very useful after all - I will often use a url shortener when sharing a complex / long link

Cheers
-- 
Peter Westwood
http://blog.ftwr.co.uk | http://westi.wordpress.com
C53C F8FC 8796 8508 88D6 C950 54F4 5DCD A834 01C5