I am relatively new to SO so I don't know all the nuances of the rules yet. I recently submitted my first edit which was rejected: https://stackoverflow.com/suggested-edits/313353

Original post links to a page using a paid-per-click URL shortener service (similar to Adf.ly) and my edit replaces this link with the actual target link. Why was this edit rejected? I am under the impression that URL shorteners should be removed, especially ones that are paid. Please let me know if my assumptions are wrong. Thanks!

  • 6
    Data point: One of the people rejecting it was the OP; message: this is not a permanent url and we do not want it posted. Jul 11, 2012 at 19:46
  • 2
    @MartijnPieters but the odd thing is "urlgone.com" sells itself on expiring the URLs after a fixed period of time.
    – Flexo
    Jul 11, 2012 at 19:47
  • 2
    @Flexo: I think that's the point.
    – user102937
    Jul 11, 2012 at 19:48
  • @Flexo: Not odd at all; the OP doesn't want the target of the URL shorterner to be posted, and with a shortener that isn't permanent they hope to achieve that, I guess. (I have no stake in this, just reporting details that may of importance to the discussion.) Jul 11, 2012 at 19:49
  • @RobertHarvey - but the exact same thing ("this is not a permanent url and we do not want it posted") can be said about the URL shortner too.
    – Flexo
    Jul 11, 2012 at 19:49
  • 8
    @Flexo: I've closed the question as too localized.
    – user102937
    Jul 11, 2012 at 19:49
  • 9
    Ah, so it's especially abusive. You're easily in the right here but probably no point in trying to correct this specific question since it's a "debug for me" question
    – Ben Brocka
    Jul 11, 2012 at 19:51
  • 5
    As for the other vote against your edit: I think that that editor misunderstood what the edit was about and thought you had replaced a legitimate URL with a spam URL instead (This edit introduces spam, defaces the post in some way, or is otherwise inappropriate.). Jul 11, 2012 at 19:51
  • Ah, I didn't even notice one of the rejectors was OP. Thanks for the clarification guys.
    – Jen
    Jul 11, 2012 at 20:12
  • In this case (I visited that question today, too) the shortener was also very ugly. At first I thought: Why would the OP point to the Amazon website until I found out that I have to view an ad before I can see the page with the problem. Jul 11, 2012 at 20:21

2 Answers 2


Quoted from an SE employee regarding URL shorteners:

They're not banned. We just hate them. We really, really hate them.

You're in the right to correct the shortened URL. One of the few URL shorteners I would trust is Google (because it will stick around). But more generally URL shorteners make it hard to determine where a URL will go, they're slow, they're a second point of failure. They're no good to have around and there's no benefit to using them in a post either.

So yes, continue to correct shortened URLs, however as mentioned above this question is a lost cause in it's present state.

  • 2
    I don't remove them because I'm afraid they'll go dead, I remove them simply because I really, really hate them, even Google ones. No other reasoning necessary. :)
    – animuson StaffMod
    Jul 11, 2012 at 19:56
  • @animuson that's a valid reason as well. They're also slow as they introduce a redirect. There's no one reason to remove them
    – Ben Brocka
    Jul 11, 2012 at 19:58
  • Accepted for directly confirming my general assumption. @animuson +1 Thanks for pointing out that OP rejected it, I had overlooked that and was confused at his rejection reasoning.
    – Jen
    Jul 11, 2012 at 20:16
  • 1
    It's like counting cards in a Las Vegas casino. It's not against any laws or anything, you may just get beaten up and left for dead in a back alley somewhere for doing it.
    – gobernador
    Jul 14, 2012 at 21:54

At this point, that question is not even a real question. We can't be expected to follow a link in order to figure out the problem. The post should expand more on the issue, possibly providing a screenshot of the width problem they're experiencing, and also pull in the relevant code where the problem is occurring.

Aside from that, the OP rejected it himself saying that it wasn't a permanent URL, all the more reason to pull in information. Once that URL goes down, that question will just be useless text on a page.

So I wouldn't worry about the URL shortener in this specific case.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .