Countless books with irrevocably broken references - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22://goo.gl%22&sca_upv=1&sc...
And for what? The cost of keeping a few TB online and a little bit of CPU power?
An absolute act of cultural vandalism.
https://tracker.archiveteam.org/goo-gl/ (1.66B work items remaining as of this comment)
How to run an ArchiveTeam warrior: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/ArchiveTeam_Warrior
(edit: i see jaydenmilne commented about this further down thread, mea culpa)
Going to run the warrior over the weekend to help out a bit.
I wanted to help and did that using VMware.
For curious people, here is what the UI looks like, you have a list of projects to choose, I choose the goo.gl project, and a "Current project" tab which shows the project activity.
Project list: https://imgur.com/a/peTVzyw
Current project: https://imgur.com/a/QVuWWIj
It wasn't a good idea to use shortened links in a citation in the first place, and somebody should have explained that to the authors. They didn't publish a book or write an academic paper in a vacuum - somebody around them should have known better and said something.
And really it's not much different than anything else online - it can disappear on a whim. How many of those shortened links even go to valid pages any more?
And no company is going to maintain a "free" service forever. It's easy to say, "It's only ...", but you're not the one doing the work or paying for it.
It's a great idea, and today in 2025, papers are pretty much the only place where using these shortened URLs makes a lot of sense. In almost any other context you could just use a QR code or something, but that wouldn't fit an academic paper.
Their specific choice of shortened URL provider was obviously unfortunate. The real failure is that of DOI to provide an alternative to goo.gl or tinyurl or whatever that is easy to reach for. It's a big failure, since preserving references to things like academic papers is part of their stated purpose.
???
DOI and ORCID sponsored link-shortening with Goo.gl. Authors did what they were told would be optimal, and ORCID was probably told by Google that it'd hone its link-shortening service for long-term reliability. What a crazy victim-blame.
Even worse if your resource is a shortened link by some other service, you've just added yet another layer of unreliable indirection.
I’m genuinely asking. It seems like its hard to trust that any service will remaining running for decades
It is built for the task, and assuming worse case scenario of sunset, it would be ingested into the Wayback Machine. Note that both the Internet Archive and Cloudflare are supporting partners (bottom of page).
(https://doi.org/ is also an option, but not as accessible to a casual user; the DOI Foundation pointed me to https://www.crossref.org/ for adhoc DOI registration, although I have not had time to research further)
You aren't responsible if things go offline. No more than if a publisher stops reprinting books and the library copies all get eaten by rats.
A reader can assess the URl for trustworthiness (is it scam.biz or legitimate_news.com) look at the path to hazard a guess at the metadata and contents, and - finally - look it up in an archive.
Say the interview of a person, a niche publication, a local pamphlet?
Maybe to certify that your article is of a certain level of credibility you need to manually preserve all the cited works yourself in an approved way.
The simplicity of the web is one of its virtues but also leaves a lot on the table.
Overcast link to relevant chapter: https://overcast.fm/+BOOFexNLJ8/02:33
Original episode link: https://shows.arrowloop.com/@abstractions/episodes/001-the-r...
For the immeasurable benefits of educating the public.
It makes me mad also, but something we have to learn the hard way is that nothing in this world is permanent. Never, ever depend on any technology to persist. Not even URLs to original hosts should be required. Inline everything.
This is a classic product data decision-making fallacy. The right question is "how much total value do all of the links provide", not "what percent are used".
Yes, but it doesn't bring in the sweet promotion home, unfortunately. Ironically, if 99% of them doesn't see any traffic, you can scale back the infra, run it in 2 VMs, and make sure a single person can keep it up as a side quest, just for fun (but, of course, pay them for their work).
This beancounting really makes me sad.
Amazon should volunteer a free-tier EC2 instance to help Google in their time of economic struggles.
Doing things for fun isn't in Google's remit
Better to have a short URL and not need it, than need a short URL and not have it IMO.
Many videos I uploaded in 4k are now only available in 480p, after about a decade.
It's less "data-driven decisions", more "how to lie with statistics".
https://x.com/elithrar/status/1948451254780526609
Remember this next time you are thinking of depending upon a Google service. They could have kept this going easily but are intentionally breaking it.
Next time? I guess there’s a wave of new people that haven’t learned that that lesson yet.
Us preserving digital archives is a good step. I guess making hard copies would be the next step.
Google’s probably trying to stop goo.gl URLs from being used for phishing, but doesn’t want to admit that publicly.
No one wants to own this product.
- The code could be partially frozen, but large scale changes are constantly being made throughout the google3 codebase, and someone needs to be on the hook for approving certain changes or helping core teams when something goes wrong. If a service it uses is deprecated, then lots of work might need to be done.
- Every production service needs someone responsible for keeping it running. Maybe an SRE, thought many smaller teams don't have their own SREs so they manage the service themselves.
So you'd need some team, some full reporting chain all the way up, to take responsibility for this. No SWE is going to want to work on a dead product where no changes are happening, no manager is going to care about it. No director is going to want to put staff there rather than a project that's alive. No VP sees any benefit here - there's only costs and risks.
This is kind of the Reader situation all over again (except for the fact that a PM with decent vision could have drastically improved and grown Reader, IMO).
This is obviously bad for the internet as a whole, and I personally think that Google has a moral obligation to not rug pull infrastructure like this. Someone there knows that critical links will be broken, but it's in no one's advantage to stop that from happening.
I think Google needs some kind of "attic" or archive team that can take on projects like this and make them as efficiently maintainable in read-only mode as possible. Count it as good-will marketing, or spin it off to google.org and claim it's a non-profit and write it off.
Side note: a similar, but even worse situation for the company is the Google Domains situation. Apparently what happened was that a new VP came into the org that owned it and just didn't understand the product. There wasn't enough direct revenue for them, even though the imputed revenue to Workspace and Cloud was significant. They proposed selling it off and no other VPs showed up to the meeting about it with Sundar so this VP got to make their case to Sundar unchallenged. The contract to sell to Squarespace was signed before other VPs who might have objected realized what happened, and Google had to buy back parts of it for Cloud.
While clearly maintenance and ownership is still a major problem, one could easily imagine deploying something similar — especially read-only — using GCP's Cloud Run and BigTable products could be less work to maintain, as you're not chasing anywhere near such a moving target.
[1] Almost the simplest possible services (sans the scale I guess) you can imagine except simple static webpages
[2] The original product included some sort of traffic counter, etc. IIRC
Myself, no, for a few reasons: I mainly work on developer tools, I'm too senior for that, and I'm not that interested.
But some people are motivated to work on internet infrastructure, and would be interested. First, you wouldn't be stuck for 10 years. That's not how Google works (and you could of course quit) you're supposed to be with a team a minimum of 18 months, and after that, transfer away. A lot of junior devs don't care that much where they land, the archive team would have to be responsible for more than just the link shortener, so it might be interesting to care for several services from top to bottom. SWEs could be compensated for rotating on to the archive team, and/or it could be part-time.
I think the harder thing is getting management buy-in, even from the front-line managers.
Also, it's quite conspicuous that 30+ years into this thing browsers still have no built-in capacity to store pages locally in a reasonable manner. We still rely on "bookmarks".
Compiler Explorer and the Promise of URLs That Last Forever (May 2025, 357 points, 189 comments)
No search engine or crawler person will ever recommend using a shortener for any reason.
But maybe a youtube disruption would be good for video on the internet. or it might be bad. idk.
So, at minimum, assuming there are 2 people maintaining this at google that probably means it would cost them $250k/yr in just payroll to keep this going. That's probably a very low ball estimate on the people involved but it still shows how expensive theses old products can be.
They are saving pennies but reminding everyone one more time that Google cannot be relied upon.
Is that the same shortening platform running it?
Unlike the google URL shortener, you can count on "Oh By" existing in 20 years.
[1] https://0x.co
https://9to5google.com/2018/03/30/google-url-shortener-shut-...
> URL Shortener has been a great tool that we’re proud to have built. As we look towards the future, we’re excited about the possibilities of Firebase Dynamic Links
Perhaps relatedly, Google is shutting down Firebase Dynamic Links too, in about a month (2025-08-25).
When you blame your customer, you have failed.
I'm not a google fanboi and the google graveyard is a well known thing, but this has been 6+ years coming.
Granted that it was a free service and Google is under no obligation to keep it going. But if they were going to be so casual about it, they shouldn't have offered it in the first place. Or perhaps, people should take that lesson instead and spare themselves the pain.
This seems to be echoed by the archiveteam scrambling to get this archived. I figure they would have backed these up years ago if it was more well known.
