Bing enters URL shorten game with binged.it

Bing has entered the arena of URL shortening, turning long bits of URL into an easily manageable URL.  Some Microsoft employees have already begun using the new service for posts on their blogs and tweets.

However, the new binged.it URL is actually longer than most shortening services out there, not to mention it’s longer than its own URL, bing.com.  It may only be longer by one character, but with the domain like “bing.com”, Microsoft could have easily used bing.it, which is also owned by Microsoft.

Google recently came out with goo.gl (five characters), Facebook’s fb.me (four characters), bit.ly (five characters) and now Bing’s very own Binged.it (eight characters).

It appears this service is only open to Microsoft employees for blogs and tweets, as @ fareologist (Bing Travel) has been using the service for about a week now, while @bing still uses bit.ly for their shortening service.

Right now, both binged.it and bing.it redirect to bing.com, so we may possibly see a bing.it service in the future.

 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

German Government asks people to stop using IE

Next Story

Neowin Forums down for a bit longer

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Never really needed URL shorteners outside of twitter and I wish they'd remove that short text limit honestly.

I can see why they wanted to use it, it just looks nice when the Bing team tweets to have their own customized links, but really, as pointed, it's a bit.ly pro account, and I doubt they're even thinking about entering this over-saturated and completely unnecessary URL shortening market.

URL shorteners + phishing sites claiming they use Twitter's API = today's internet's worst two 'features'.

so http://www.binged.it redirects to http://bit.ly
and http://binged.it redirects to http://www.bing.com

it gives me this url for example: http://bit.ly/8rZerk
testing it on binged.it like this http://binged.it/8rZerk doesn't work it gives me this funny message:


"Uh oh, bit.ly couldn't find a link for the bit.ly URL you clicked.
Maybe one of the pufferfish ate it, or maybe there are some extra characters on the end of the URL.
Most bit.ly URLs are 4-6 characters, and only include letters and numbers. "

:p

The entire "URL shortening" concept is a fail for security, usability, and longetivity (link rot is bad enough already).

Since I don't know where the URLs go, I don't click them. There's no damn reason Twitter can't afford a couple KB of disk space to store a full address. Lord knows nobody's creating shortened URLs from a phone, and they could just shorten a link to read "link" and keep the proper URL when pasted in from a computer.

I know they don't want it to look like 'binged' (as in, 'I binged on tequila last night'), but it looks like that to me.

Pretty sure that bit.ly wins overall right now for url shorteners. I don't even know how anyone over at Microsoft fails hard at this shortening service, especially the moron that decided on the name. Why? Because as already mentioned there are 8 characters for the Bing shortner and 7 for the real domain. Not much a shortener are well? :)

Is this shortening crap all about twitter? It's the only thing I can think of. I haven't felt more irritated by an internet trend in as long as I can remember. I like knowing where I'm going before I click a link. Is there some sort of security layer built into this crap, because we already know that unsafe links in emails are a major contributor to the spread of viruses, so how is this trend not just as risky?

Not to mention, most of the time I see these, they aren't hyperlinked and demand I copy/paste them. Figures after nearly two decades the web has decided to shed its most fundamental feature.

Joshie said,
Is this shortening crap all about twitter? It's the only thing I can think of. I haven't felt more irritated by an internet trend in as long as I can remember. I like knowing where I'm going before I click a link. Is there some sort of security layer built into this crap, because we already know that unsafe links in emails are a major contributor to the spread of viruses, so how is this trend not just as risky?

Not to mention, most of the time I see these, they aren't hyperlinked and demand I copy/paste them. Figures after nearly two decades the web has decided to shed its most fundamental feature.


These URL shortening services have been around forever. Well before Twitter.

M_Lyons10 said,

These URL shortening services have been around forever. Well before Twitter.

Ya I know, but they've exploded in popularity over the past few months, which is what I was getting at.

bangbang023 said,
Only Microsoft could make such a long address for a shortening service.

Though I agree that it could have been shorter, << spam >> has been rather successful and that's 2 characters longer (Albeit more catchy...)

bangbang023 said,
Only Microsoft could make such a long address for a shortening service.

It's clear you and I guess everyone else have missed the fact that it is infact shorter than normal bing.com because you're taken out www. at the start.

So yes, it is shorter.

GP007 said,

It's clear you and I guess everyone else have missed the fact that it is infact shorter than normal bing.com because you're taken out www. at the start.

So yes, it is shorter.

Bing.com doesn't need the 'www.' - in fact pretty much nothing does, it's kind of irrelevant.

bangbang023 said,
Only Microsoft could make such a long address for a shortening service.

Yes, I thought goo.gl was pushing it, but this is three letters longer! No, I'll use those 3-4 letter ones instead. It may sound silly, but this is about making the best use of a very limited space. If it means I won't have to reformulate myself or leave out punctuation, it's an obvious choice.

Edited by Northgrove, Jan 16 2010, 10:13am :

bangbang023 said,
Only Microsoft could make such a long address for a shortening service.

www.Microsoft%28r%29Windows%28r%29OperatingSystemUniversalResourceLocatorShorteningManagementSystem2010UltimateEditionUpgrade.com

stgeorge said,
www.MicrosoftWindowsOperatingSystemUniversalResourceLocatorShorteningManagementSystem2010UltimateEditionUpgrade.com

Yes, I could really see them creating such a monster.
btw, the line is too long and spills over the border. That needs to be fixed.

Edited by Lord Ba'al, Jan 16 2010, 11:48pm :

Lord Ba'al said,

Yes, I could really see them creating such a monster.
btw, the line is too long and spills over the border. That needs to be fixed.

This would be the shortest name coming out of a committee meeting between upper management and the lawyers. Then they would appoint a low-level programmer to be the "face" of this new system and kill his career.

Intelman said,
....

Bing.it is for italy. It searches italian pages if you want...


We'll they are using binged.it, not much different from bing.it, even if they do use it for italy pages.

I see what you mean. They could have the service setup so it would still use that domain even if you access it on some other url such as bing.com/shorten. there you could create a bing.it shortener.

What is up with all this shortening action anyways. And why does this new editor not respect spaces between paragraphs, it looks funny!

Edited by ObiWanToby, Jan 16 2010, 5:48am :

Andrew Lyle said,

We'll they are using binged.it, not much different from bing.it, even if they do use it for italy pages.

I think that the point was that "bing.it" already has a purpose, as Bing is a global brand with sites in other countries... They can't just have all Italians sent to an URL shortening site instead of the search engine because it would be more convenient for us.

M_Lyons10 said,

I think that the point was that "bing.it" already has a purpose, as Bing is a global brand with sites in other countries... They can't just have all Italians sent to an URL shortening site instead of the search engine because it would be more convenient for us.


you can still use bing.it/whatever for a short URL.. It could be used as two things

Phantom Helix said,
how about 8 letters = fa.il lol

Exactly. They should've at least used "bing.it". "bi.ng" would be even better (if there is a .ng domain).
binged.it really can't be considered short at all, just another of MS' attempts at something new that went badly wrong.