Semantic urls, not domain: ThnLnk.com |
When I first looked at the domain name thnLnk.com I thought it might be something to do with tablet pcs. For my weathered eyes, it looked a little like “ink” not “Lnk”
Turns out, no, it’s actually intended to be a shorter URL like service but one that takes a long URL and makes it more sensible, thus making some really short URLs longer. Confused? It’s not that bad.
The idea is curious, having URLSs that actually tell you what they mean, for example all the MakeYouGoHmm URLs are just dated and do not tell you what, but actually when. I chose not to add the cruft-style URL here (mainly because of length and convenience) so instead of makeyougohmm.com/semantic_urls_not_domains_thnnk.com you get makeyougohmm.com/YYYYMMDD/postID — although there are plenty of blogs out there who use the cruft-style format.
Still, even some titles don’t always give the meaning of what’s on the page, which is where this type of semantic URL service might be more useful.
Did this post make you go hmm?
(Hmm, no ratings yet)
Loading ...
I created a similar URL shortening service(Better URL, http://burl.fergcorp.com/) a few months back as a proof-of-concept for a Lifehacker article I read (http://burl.fergcorp.com/lifehacker/6f627). For the most part BURL and ThnLnk do the same thing, except BURL doesn’t let you add a title.
Comment by Andrew Ferguson — February 26, 2006 @ 11:25 pm PST
Thanks for sharing, Andrew. I’m thinking one could also spider the page content for contextual keywords and automatically assign. I have had http://tdurl.com/ for quite some time as well, but it’s just a URL shortening service, not keyword stuff. Some of these generated URLs sort of escape the whole point of shortening them.
Comment by TDavid — February 26, 2006 @ 11:48 pm PST
I agree that the domain name can be a bit confusing, but sometimes “vision” (of thin links!) poorly preempts implementation (semantic URLs aren’t always short!). I think, though, that there is a real subtle difference between author-generated or community-generated tags and third-party-oriented tags, i.e., telling “me” how content should be defined, and readers telling other readers how content should be defined.
And I agree with you that non-cruft-laden URLs are becoming more common which is definitely a Good Thing.
But thanks for running across my humble idea and taking the time to write about it!
Comment by paul — February 27, 2006 @ 1:53 am PST
The realm of making domain names easier for users to manage is definitely fertile ground for further development. I’ve always thought that the whole “http://www” thing is far too much technical information for the average web surfer, not to mention the rest of a heavily crufted URL. However, I think that maybe tags and search engines will evolve to cover this ground by covering the URL’s entirely. Browsers and web content management tools could evolve to copy links without the user ever having to see the URL. URL’s could become as esoteric as IP addresses are today. On the other hand, it’s always nice to be able to publish a direct link on TV or in print — that calls for some type of URL equivalent. On the third hand, though, one day TV will have direct links and print may be no more!
Comment by Sterling Camden — February 27, 2006 @ 1:47 pm PST