URL Shorteners Slow Down The Web – Especially Facebook’s FB.me
Robin Wauters
Mar 17, 2010

It’s hard to imagine a Web sans URL shortening services nowadays but you can rest assured that they’re here to stay – for better or worse. Question is: how do the likes of bit.ly, TinyURL and Goo.gl score in terms of speed and availability?

That’s exactly what Dutch startup WatchMouse sought to find out, by monitoring the performance and uptime for 14 popular URL shorteners for a whole month.

Turns out most really don’t perform all that well, and that URL shorteners actually increase the load time of pages significantly. As you can tell from the graph embedded above, a lot of URL shortening services add half to nearly a full second to page load times.

To measure this, WatchMouse checked each URL shortener every five minutes from one of its monitoring stations, which are located across the globe. For each short URL, only the redirection was measured, not the actual loading of the target page.

Pingdom did similar research on the speed and reliability of URL shortening services in August 2009, although they only looked at independent URL shorteners and not the ones from Microsoft, Facebook and Google.

Google does a pretty good job in terms of performance with Goo.gl and YouTu.be, but it still takes those about 1/3 of a second to resolve pages, which makes a world of difference if you think about how many website addresses get shortened on a daily basis.

According to WatchMouse’s findings, Facebook’s FB.me is by far the slowest of the pack, adding over two seconds on average to the page load time after the click on a link.

Another interesting thing the company noticed is that only a few of the URL shorteners optimized their name servers for international use – i.e. it takes half a second for some of the URL shorteners just to look up the IP address that is needed for a browser to retrieve a Web page.

As for the availability of the URL shortening services: most do reasonably well in this regard, with snurl.com performing worst of the bunch with south of 98% uptime. Facebook’s fb.me registered the third worst uptime out of the 14 services that were tracked, although that still means about 99.5% availability – which isn’t terrible.

Now all they have to do is speed it up a little.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  • sr
  • http://blog.42.pe Diego Ferreyra

    Did anyone measure how shorteners improve the load on networks consideren that they mean less bytes to transfer?

  • Robin Wauters

    Similar indeed, although they didn’t test the URL shorteners from the major companies – added a link nonetheless, thanks for noticing.

  • http://macsmiley.tumblr.com/ MacSmiley

    Add to this problem this Facebook atrocity:

    http://macsmiley.tumblr.com/394758092

  • http://jacobian.web.id jacobian

    well that’s a nice statistics. I’ll choose bit.ly then from now on.

  • http://librarianchat.com/forum/ librarianchat

    I thought they were supposed to speed things up.

  • Greg

    They tested all of the big name shorteners out there. You think Facebook with all of there bright engineers could make it a little more speedy. Youtube and Google are essentially the same I’m sure that’s no surprise but a lot of the other ones I figured would spend time on making it as quick as possible; especially the ones funded. The less known shortner I use is quicker then most of those with almost 100% uptime so I’ll be sticking to that for now.

  • Nicolas

    What ?

    You are adding another process before accessing to the real link.
    Even if we are talking of a few bytes, that still add up to the real page loading… So it doesn’t improve anything…

  • Nicolas

    No they are just supposed to make your live easier when you want to share a link.

  • Nathan

    I spend far too much time browsing junk on the internet, and I almost never encounter URL shorteners. They are a problem that’s mostly limited to the Twits and whatnot.
    But, when I do see links that are obscured behind one of these shorteners it makes me all pissy for all the reasons that URL shorteners reduce usability, break the web, etc. etc. (as if a thousand posts haven’t been written on why these services suck).
    Can’t someone solve this, so I don’t have to be annoyed every once in a while? Can’t the Twitter peeps just make some small technical changes so that people can paste in full URL’s? And, you know, get this crap off my internets?

  • http://scite.me Matt

    A quick plug, don’t forget about sitecite.com. It launched at TC50 ’09 (where I first saw it). It allows custom URLs. Handy for remembering your own bookmarks.

    Cheers,
    Matt

  • Gerald
  • Jason

    If you consider that way more clicks are rendered than are clicked on, then Diego’s question makes sense. For someone who clicks on a link, the network load is higher. For someone who just reads an article with links in it, the network load is lower.

  • David

    URL shorteners actually increase traffic, because they send back an HTTP redirect to the full URL in question, which your browser then has to request and load.

  • http://econtricks.blogspot.com Greg Finley

    Sure, there may be billions of short URLs, but since each person only clicks a handful a day, the delays don’t make us much worse off.

    I’ve written more about this here:

    http://econtricks.blogspot.com/2010/03/so-what-if-url-shorteners-are-slow.html

  • http://alex-moss.co.uk Alex Moss

    is there any way of finding out how other URL shorteners (such as getclicky) respond too?

  • http://favit.com/marfi Martin

    I have not followed fb.me link yet, but good God, I hate the ow.ly stuff. I pretty much believe it is a question of the bar that loads – it is damn slow.

    Try also a shortener out of the list fav.ly – here is a link http://fav.ly/dfO80F it hust flies! No bars – no speed limits :)

  • http://www.bottledcomputer.com/?p=8677 URL Shorteners Slow Down The Web – Especially Facebook's FB.me

    [...] from: URL Shorteners Slow Down The Web – Especially Facebook's FB.me Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: looked-at-independent, microsoft, only-looked, [...]

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1304880680 Noah Hendrix
  • Jason

    Again, this is true if you only consider links that are clicked on. For links that are simply transferred to the browser but not clicked on, URL shorteners reduce network traffic. I don’t have any real data to back this statement up, but if my web usage is in any way typical, the number of links that are clicked on is dwarfed by the number of links that are not.

  • http://tecnoblog.net/news/pesquisa-revela-que-encurtadores-de-url-deixam-web-mais-lerda-17791.htm Pesquisa revela que encurtadores de URL deixam web mais lerda | News

    [...] tracking de estatísticas de clique. Fica a cargo do usuário decidir se a troca vale à pena. [Techcrunch] Categorias: Web Tags: encurtador url, Redes Sociais, Web [...]

  • http://www.andersofniets.nl Patrick

    Slow down the web? How so? They slow down user experience, which is far more important. Where is the customer-centric approach? ;)

  • http://stubbornella.org/content/ Nicole Sullivan

    Any form of redirects are going to be slow: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#redirects

  • http://isthisreallynecessary.com Rob Marquardt

    You’re shortening links so you can tell someone in person to go to “bit dot ell why slash lowercase bee nine uppercase aitch lowercase why ex see”?

    For posting here, I’m sure the first takes less time since it saves you a trip to the shortener, and I can immediately see where it goes without copy/pasting the bit.ly link and adding a “+” to the end to preview.

    I don’t have a problem with shorteners being used on Twitter where space is at a premium and messages are transient. It does bug me when they’re used within blog/news posts, though.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500179513 Avi Muchnick

    If I remember correctly, this was the exact the premise for a great article by Joshua Schacter (Delicious founder) on why shortners were a bad thing for the web.

  • Joey

    You also have to consider extensions though. Since I use Google Chrome with the “goo.gl” extension, all I need to shorten a URL is click a button in the toolbar and the current page is shortened. The URL is also copied to the clipboard, ready to share.

  • Mark

    You could have added your own junk parameters beyond what were already generated.
    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cupertino,+ca&sll=26.275391,-81.790457&sspn=0.16039,0.308647&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Cupertino,+Santa+Clara,+California&ll=37.31939,-122.032013&spn=0.14225,0.308647&t=h&z=12&extraParam=blah&allParamsNeeded=false&something=another+thing&why=because&url=cryptic&url=cryptic&google=ignoring+these+extra+parameters&randomComment=This+URL+can+be+made+a+lot+shorter&secondComment=You+do+not+need+a+URL+shortener+to+remove+the+junk+parameters

    Alternatively, you could have kept removing stuff until you got to something nice and minimal, like http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.31939,-122.032013&z=15 with the “&z=15″ part being optional, if you don’t care what zoom level it results in.

    The real problem is not with the URL shorteners, but the sites that generate really long URLs in the first place.

  • Ilan Ben Menachem

    nice statistics…..thanks

  • http://www.letsmovetothemoon.com Steven Rossi

    Not to jump on the fanboy-mobile or anything, but I’m not all that surprised that Google’s links are the fastest. I think I’d be disappointed if they weren’t. ;-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=738677316 Reade Holtslander

    Well the problem that short URLs are addressing is not speed but space.
    I am not a coding person but I suspect anything you put in between the user and the address is going to add some time to the process. Which, by my reckoning, is a trade off that is not unwarranted.

  • http://www.lecloud.net Sebastian

    Some technical info:

    The usage of url shorteners for performance reasons is absolute nonsense. Each character in a link “costs” 1 byte in connection. So if you shorten for example a link to a Techcrunch article then you will maybe save 20 byte (if you’re lucky). But who cares about 20 byte in today’s time where most people have 1Mbit or more connections? In best case you maybe save somewhat of a 1/10000 of a second of loading time.

    There are dozens of other ways of improving website load performance and shortening URLs should be your lowest concern. Especially since most modern websites already come compressed to your browser (like a ZIP file).

    But more important is the impact on usability. And that is a very negative one. If you want to be a good web citizen: don’t use url shortening services, they just disturb.

  • LeBain

    “you can rest assured that they’re here to stay”

    The only reason URL shortening exist is for Twitter. Once everyone’s off feature phones with limited SMS, and onto smart phones and MMS, and once the buzz over Twitter subsides, URL-shortening will become useless. URL-shortening is simply an artifact of this moment in the Internet, and is definitely not here to stay.

  • The John

    @Nathan I totally agree.

    Wouldn’t it be pretty easy to get rid of URL shorteners for most use cases by just having your service (say twitter) pre-fetch the full URL from the shortening service (at tweet creation time, not display time) and having the later-displayed link actually point to that URL (but still just displaying the shortened version on the twitter.com page itself or wherever).

    For example (hopefully this doesn’t get garbled):
    \http://the.shortened.url\

    Hopefully the above made sense…

  • The John

    Yeah, wordpress/whatever chewed up my example. Let me try that again.

    http://the.shortened.url

  • The John

    Yeah, there you go, problem solved. The shortened URL would still be displayed for character-restricted clients (like SMS or whatever) and the full URL would hide behind it and be used in browsers/etc without cluttering up the page.

    I’m probably missing something, but it seems like there’s probably a pretty easy technical fix behind the problem, if it starts to annoy twitter/FB users.

  • http://www.jk4u2c.com/semantics/2009/10/the-future-internet-service-web-3-0/ The Future Internet: Service Web 3.0

    [...] URL Shorteners Slow Down The Web – Especially Facebook's FB.me [...]

  • Tim

    You’re thinking about it from the wrong end of the connection. Short urls save bandiwdth on the serving end. If they save 20 bytes per link, and that particular web server, send out 1 million links, that’s 20 million bytes it hasn’t had to send out.

    The problem from the cusumer end is that every time they click on the link, they get redirected to the real link, which uses up more than 20 bytes. Considering not all of those 1 million links will be clicked, you have to do the maths and work out of you’ve actually saved anything at the end of the day.

    Personally I find bitly.com easier to remember than bit.ly, because as an english speaking person, I have .com ingrained in my head. If it doesn’t end in .com, .com.au, .co.uk, etc then first reaction is it’s a) not normal, and b) a potential scam link from dodgeyland.

    Worst part about shortners is educating people where the dot goes because they break up words. At least fb.me doesn’t resemble facebook, but now I have to make the association they are related. Personally I agree with you, from a usability point of view, they stink. From a technical point of view, they are probably only useful for companies serving massive quantities of links with lower click through rates to get the byte savings.

  • steve

    ummm… less than a second on all but FB? Shall we talk about what broadband has done to speed up the web? The convenience outweighs the time in this example.

  • http://www.jk4u2c.com/semantics/2010/03/the-semantic-web-nigel-shadbolt/ The Semantic Web – Nigel Shadbolt | JK Technologies |

    [...] URL Shorteners Slow Down The Web – Especially Facebook's FB.me [...]

  • The John

    Long URLs are really, really, really not using up very much bandwidth. Its a tiny fraction of the bites needed to serve up a page, if you include all the html and CSS and javascript and whatnot.

    Even your somewhat-long-winded post is using up many times more data than a typical URL, and nobody is trying to shorten that.

  • http://www.sriraj.org Sriraj

    Still can’t stop laughing, Bing.com and Binged.it

  • tren

    Nah, not really. actually, url shorteners make the life of publishers more convenient.

    I laugh at other people saying goo.gl and Fb will kill bit.ly, gee.. look at it now, still soaring?

    Bitly are well aware of the implications of the impending google shortening onslaught, as you can see they are now launching bitly pro to increase their already wonderful features.

    See the detailed review about this one: http://bit.ly/google-shortener-vs-bitly-review

  • http://leifandersen.net Leif Andersen

    I think that slowing down the internet is only the start of the problem for URL shortening: http://leifandersen.net/2009/12/26/archiving-the-internet/

  • http://www.tuiter.com/los-acortadores-de-direcciones-ralentizan-la-web/ Los acortadores de direcciones ralentizan la web | Tuiter.com

    [...] Vía | TechCrunch [...]

  • Alberto

    There is another shortener service, xpld.me with a cool feature, you can pack several urls into a short one.

    You can open all the links at the same time with one click (be aware of popups blockers).

    Here it’s an example of techcrunch, crunchgear, mobilecrunch and techcrunchit all in this short url: http://xpld.me/?c9Mj

  • Mark

    @Alberto
    What does a URL shortener letting you combine multiple URLs have to do with the speed of URL shorteners?

  • http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/03/19/facebook-roundup-ftc-design-changes-nestle-urls-and-more/ Facebook Roundup: FTC, Design Changes, Nestlé, URLs and More

    [...] turns out that uptime is still an issue for some of the URL services, only goo.gl and twt.tl had a perfect [...]

  • http://digitalpr.se/2010/03/21/digitalpr-kommenterar-20100321/ Strandh.DigitalPR » Blog Archive » DigitalPR kommenterar: 2010/03/21

    [...] URL Shorteners Slow Down The Web – Especially Facebook’s FB.me [...]

  • http://blogs.eurielec.etsit.upm.es/miotroblog/?p=3340 Mi otro blog… » Blog Archive » Acortadores de URLs: Una comparativa

    [...] verificar si funciona habitualmente y si lo hace de una forma aceptable, ya que tal y como indican  las medidas de prestaciones realizadas, no todos funcionan igual de bien o de mal (como es el caso del acortador de direcciones de [...]

  • http://bant.am Dominic Holland

    now there will be even more… we all heard that bit.ly pro opened there beta to 5000 registrations that gives them a custom url shortener at their own short.url, however this beta is now closed, only allows 10k url’s a day (not that that should not be enough), and takes a while to get provisioned..

    well aussie startup bant.am offers FREE url shorteners setup in less than 2 mins, and even let’s you find a short url that suits your personal/business/trademark url. It is pretty cool. I reckon this time next year their will be like 1m+ url shorteners thanks to bant.am

  • http://z2z.ca z2z

    Although I’m running a semi-private URL shortener (that is now available to public), I have the application on a dedicated server. Most url shorteners collect a lot of data and some even have analytics installed, which slows down the whole web. Personally I do not collect any data, which makes the application much faster. It’s mainly targeted for Canada and it’s not used a lot: z2z.ca .

  • http://rapidhelp.com.ar/inicio/los-acortadores-de-direcciones-ralentizan-la-web Los acortadores de direcciones ralentizan la web

    [...] Vía | TechCrunch [...]

  • http://www.vindiaservices.com/ IT Outsourcing

    This is really very helpful to shorten the URL because the big URL creates so many problems specially in face book and other communities.

  • http://www.colocare.info/colocare/nouta%c8%9bi-din-saptamana-112010.html Noutăți din săptămâna 11/2010 | Colocare – Servere dedicate, Gazduire servere

    [...] Dacă folosești mult “scurtătoarele de adrese”, ca bit.ly sau tinyurl, ai grijă pe care îl alegi, unele dintre ele încetinesc destul de mult browsing-ul. [...]

  • http://blog.twentyfeet.com/2010/04/01/url-shortener-speed-test/ URL Shortener Speed Test « TwentyFeet Blog – Check your Track!

    [...] URL shortener is the fastest? [...]

  • http://www.shoutmeloud.com/breaking-facebook-url-shortener-fb-me-is-down.html [Breaking] Facebook URL Shortener Fb.me is Down

    [...] Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic. Sometime back we informed you about official Facebook URL shortener fb.me and it’s been officially mentioned by fb.me slows down the internet by Techcrunch. [...]

  • http://www.liamalexander.com/blog/2010/04/17/great-content-to-tweet-on-twitter-where-to-get-it/ Great Content to Tweet on Twitter: Where to Get it | A Slice of Life

    [...] URL Shorteners Slow Down The Web – Especially Facebook’s FB.me (techcrunch.com) [...]

  • slothrpg

    Why do not usehttp://paidly.com – url shortener, i think this is the best choice!

  • erez213

    There is new site which short your url using more than 10 services once,he calledhttp://www.shortesturl.net
    Enjoy

  • Tim

    http://Bu.tt is the only URL shortener we use – it gets attention in blog posts and works great!

  • Enzo

    I use http://twig.mx it is fast and reliable so far.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement
Got a tip? Building a startup? Tell us