<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Beware of Those Shortened URLs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogherald.com/2009/07/17/beware-of-those-shortened-urls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2009/07/17/beware-of-those-shortened-urls/</link>
	<description>The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:30:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Lars Tong Strömberg</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2009/07/17/beware-of-those-shortened-urls/comment-page-1/#comment-1102479</link>
		<dc:creator>Lars Tong Strömberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:34:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/?p=13323#comment-1102479</guid>
		<description>On top of the tech itself, if Google indeed would get onto that URL-shortener boat, would not a.ly or a similiar single-char domain for an URL-shortener be worth the extra 2 char edge over a service such as bit.ly? 

As URL-shorteners become more and more important, going for a single-char domain is likely worth it for a big player such as Google as the primary selling point for that kind of service indeed is the shortest possible URL... 

Having said that, I totally agree bit.ly is a great service and the best around at the moment that at least I know of.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On top of the tech itself, if Google indeed would get onto that URL-shortener boat, would not a.ly or a similiar single-char domain for an URL-shortener be worth the extra 2 char edge over a service such as bit.ly? </p>
<p>As URL-shorteners become more and more important, going for a single-char domain is likely worth it for a big player such as Google as the primary selling point for that kind of service indeed is the shortest possible URL&#8230; </p>
<p>Having said that, I totally agree bit.ly is a great service and the best around at the moment that at least I know of.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wallace</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2009/07/17/beware-of-those-shortened-urls/comment-page-1/#comment-1102455</link>
		<dc:creator>Wallace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:40:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/?p=13323#comment-1102455</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the headup.
If Google want to acquire any url shortener service,
bit.ly should be the first choice,
it&#039;s the leader at that field as i know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the headup.<br />
If Google want to acquire any url shortener service,<br />
bit.ly should be the first choice,<br />
it&#8217;s the leader at that field as i know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

