Best URL shortener for quick, anonymous use

Best URL shortener for quick, anonymous use

25.Sep.2021

Free URL shortener TinyURL has been in the game since 2002, and for good reason. It's a useful tool for when you're in a hurry and need to create a short link that will never expire. Just paste your long link into the box, customize the second half of the URL, if you want, and click Make TinyURL! You can then use that link indefinitely without fear that it will stop working.

 

Although you don't need an account to use TinyURL, if you sign up for one, you can see a history of all your shortened links. You can also subscribe to a paid plan if you want features like tracking and analytics, brand promotion opportunities, and direct marketing solutions. Here are some other notable features:

Shortens almost any URL (doesn't support certain top-level domains at the moment)

Can shorten multiple URLs in one go with custom labels (i.e., 'a', 'b', etc.)

Customizable second URL (keeps that part short!)

URLs created by TinyURL are not permanent; they redirect through their servers

Uses 256-bit encryption

Doesn't

Although you don't need an account to use TinyURL, if you sign up for one, you can see a history of all your shortened links. You can also subscribe to a paid plan if you want features like tracking and analytics, brand customization options or priority support.

TinyURL is probably the best option if you're looking to create a quick, anonymous link. If you don't want anyone to know where you're sending people or what inspired you yourself, then use this tool for that purpose alone (i.e., do not use it as your personal shortener of choice).

TinyURL also has an API and can be used with common URL shortening tools like Ifttt and Zapier — which means your favorite service might already support it

You can find more details about TinyURL here: https://tinyurl.com/ . [This is the "about" page.

 

Best URL shortener for quick, anonymous use

This was a long and detailed article about TinyURL. Here's the core: "Although you don't need an account to use TinyURL, if you sign up for one, you can see a history of all your shortened links." Hope this helps! Thanks for reading. --Angus (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A very good summary of the topic. Please feel free to make edits as needed :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceCreamMan (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC) There is still some NPOV issues need to be resolved before this article can be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:C33B:5500:ACD8:AEC6:FFFF:F448 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC

Comment - I think the introduction is a bit too promotional and it's not very clear what the article is about; perhaps reordering the information and adding material on less well-known alternatives would help to improve clarity? J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

 

Comment - I think that the article could be improved by adding some more detail about TinyURL's history and development. --Angus (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 

 

Comment - I've moved the article to free URL shortener and added a bit of more information on websites that use TinyURL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceCreamMan (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 

Thanks for your feedback, everyone! The reasons you gave were:

1. Too promotional in tone

2. Not very clear what the article is about

3. NPOV issues remain

4. History & development could be improved upon

5. Article has been moved but there are still some grey areas in regards to how it fits in with Wikipedia's guidelines These were my thoughts when revising the article before posting it here,

Comment - As Angus and J Milburn said. Additionally, there is no citation format at all used in this article; it should be either "citation needed" tags or properly formatted inline citations for anything that isn't common knowledge, such as TinyURL's history. Furthermore, the infobox has an out of date information on pricing plans and the article lacks formatting guideline conformance, such as use of tables and lead section templates. Overall it seems like a somewhat disorganized mess too; I'd suggest rewriting/expanding based on content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_URL#cite_note-1 . --AtrocityExMachina (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC) I've added some more detail to the history section - while it is probably true that the article could be improved by adding some more references, I'm not sure how significant this would be in comparison with other problems expressed here; perhaps we should move on to other issues first? J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC) Comment - Main problem seems to stem from lack of sources; skim through WP guidelines for inline citations and NPOV; think you'll find it helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by

I agree with the above comment. --Angus (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I don't see any NPOV issue in this article. It's just not very well written - it's quite stilted and is missing some commas and apostrophes. There are no links out to other sites or anything else that would improve the readability. I've rewritten the most glaringly obvious bad bits of copy/paste text but can't do too much more without more sources. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that the article is currently written in a more promotional tone than what encyclopedia articles should be. The issue of its readability could possibly be mitigated with some normalization of grammar and structure and proper formatting, though I'd wonder how much we can expect to accomplish without significant efforts on sourcing and citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Come on! This is so easy it's pathetic... [ edit

 

Articles should be written in third person and not including personal views or opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

 

This article should target a general audience, so I will suggest making the prose less technical and also avoiding any jargon that isn't commonly used in Wikipedia articles. --Angus (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Angus. It is not written for the general public. The language doesn't flow right and it's quite technical, which should be avoided in Wikipedia articles unless it's about something specifically technical. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate wording was found to improve readability of article - the article has improved since this comment was left, though further work could still be done. --Angus (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Article updated with changes suggested by Angus - thanks! J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The only person who will actually use it now is

We are social