Google to kill off URL shortener once and for all
- Reference: 1721395754
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/07/19/google_to_kill_off_url_shortener/
- Source link:
The Google URL Shortener was [1]launched in 2009 as an attempt to make lengthy links manageable by feeding them into Google's shortener, which spat out shorter ones in the form of https://goog.gl/* . Nine years later, [2]Google decided to pull the service and direct users to Firebase Dynamic Links (FDL) instead.
At the time, Google said, "All existing links will continue to redirect to the intended destination."
[3]
However, [4]as of August 25, 2025, any links built with the Google URL shortener in the form of https://goog.gl/* won't return a response.
[5]
[6]
It'll be a slow death for the service. From August 23, 2024, goo.gl links will show an interstitial page for a percentage of users warning that the link's days are numbered. As the shutdown date nears, that percentage will increase.
Once shutdown happens, the links will simply return a 404 response.
[7]Google slashes maps API prices in India – weeks after a competitor emerged
[8]OpenAI’s GPT-4o Mini is indeed small – like its lead over rivals in certain tests
[9]Thunderbird is go: 128 now out with revamped 'Nebula' UI
[10]Microsoft wasn't CISPE's only suitor – it seems Google was willing to pay for its views on cloudy licensing to prevail
The interstitial links could be a headache in their own right since there is every chance they could interfere with a redirect flow. And this is why Google's advising engineers to transition those goog.gl links as quickly as possible.
But transition them to where? Google's earlier advice to move to FDL might have sounded good in 2018, but the company has since [11]deprecated the functionality , and on August 25, 2025, the service will stop working, alongside the Google URL Shortener.
[12]
The challenge facing engineers is tracking down all the places where an affected link might be used; Link Rot – where links that might have once worked but now return a 404 – has become an increasing problem as the World Wide Web has matured. Decisions such as Google's will only serve to make the problem worse. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/making-urls-shorter-for-google-toolbar.html
[2] https://developers.googleblog.com/en/transitioning-google-url-shortener-to-firebase-dynamic-links/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZpqNllhF5loWgU5MVhcibQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://developers.googleblog.com/en/google-url-shortener-links-will-no-longer-be-available/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZpqNllhF5loWgU5MVhcibQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZpqNllhF5loWgU5MVhcibQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/19/google_maps_india_price_cuts_ola_response/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/19/openaigpt4o_mini/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/18/thunderbird_128_nebula/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/16/microsoft_google_cispe/
[11] https://firebase.google.com/support/dynamic-links-faq
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZpqNllhF5loWgU5MVhcibQAAAIE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Good riddance
Mike 137,
I'm unusre what to think on this. On the one hand, I'm like you and really hate link-shorteners. I know they're not all scams - but it's not easy to tell which. And a lot of them don't allow you to find out the full link you're being asked to click on - so you can work it out yourself.
On the other hand - how hard would it be for Google to just maintain this service? Like so many things with Google - they create a useful service, then just randomly kill it. It can't require that much resource for them to keep it going - given that they committed to do it. But then Google even do this for paid services - like that time they bought Nest and discontinued half the product range - and just shut the servers down on IoT kit that people had bought 3 months before.
Re: Good riddance
If it doesn't bring profit, it's a detractor. Detractors are taken out back the finance department and shot.
Re: Good riddance
There's actually never been a need for a centralised service for them: spartacus.com could easily implement it's own shortener and set the redirect headers. You only need a fairly simple hashing function (salt it if you want), and job done.
Do many people still use them? Or even know such a thing exists?
They have their uses, I suppose - say, for posting a link into an IM or email - but I'm always extra wary of them. I can't imagine that many people will have used them as internal links within their sites, but maybe on social media profiles, or as links to shared documents etc. Could be a real pain tracking them all down, though I'd suggest that if you rely on anything made by Google you probably deserve the pain, and maybe even enjoy it :)
Unfortunately in this case, their primary use seems to be to convince a mark that the URL you're asking them to click is a google site. So when it redirects to a "gmail" login screen, of course they'll just fill in their details...
Should have been killed years ago.
At last...
Google kills off something that I can agree with.
With those shortened URL's you have no idea if the place that you think that you are going is not some child pron site.
For once, I can say, WELL DONE GOOGLE
I still hate everything you stand for.
Even without short URLs
a number of websites fail to maintain their own internal links. I clicked on a link on the Tefal site the other day to check out one of their products, but the link went nowhere, instead I got a message saying the page did not exist. Duh, bit of spring cleaning due?
Good riddance
URL shorteners are, and have always been, a snare and delusion. By definition, the poor sod clicking on one hasn't a clue where they will land up, so they're a primary vector for browser-based attacks. However they came about largely in response to the increasing use of such monstrosities as unreadable and untypeable 1k+ long hashes as URL parameters. Clearly, the primary purpose of the URL (to make links user-accessible) has long been forgotten.