Pondering PageRank and TinyURLs

A couple of weeks ago I posted a link on Twitter and noticed it was automatically converted into a tinyurl (http://tinyurl.com). The URL was not too long to fit into my 140 characters.

This got me thinking, I have never felt the need to use tinyurls, but are they actually doing damage?

How do tinyurls effect PageRank? Should hosts fear a duplicate content penalty? especially if tinyurl.com has a higher initial page rank than your own site?

Has anyone seen googles algorithm deal with these URLs in a good or bad way? Are all these great links in twitter going to waste? Surely not?

There is some debate about this topic here :

http://www.thescripts.com/forum/thread96963.html

I would be interested in any views on this.

Advertisements

One thought on “Pondering PageRank and TinyURLs

  1. I’m generally not hugely interested in the whole PageRank/SEO issue – nevertheless, I agree that TinyURLs are a problem.

    In the case of Twitter, it does of course make sense to use TinyURLs when messages are distributed via SMS. But for all other channels (e.g. IM, the web interface) the respective URL could be kept in its original form, possibly with a shortened label.
    In fact, this seems to be happening already (e.g. http://twitter.com/FND/statuses/487899022) – though not consistently (I fail to recognize any pattern so far).

Comments are closed.