- May 2, 2010
- 9,953
- 16,066
if you own the domain of the link shortner, then yes, its better than using "the one that everyone uses" as then its not a link shortner really anymore. It's just a convenient redirection from your old project to your new project to help users 
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,589
- 6,873
There will be a slight dampening factor in play with link juice, more so if the redirect is a 302 vs a 301. You're also at risk of all your backlink endeavours being ruined if your shortened url is deleted or removed - so as @Panther28 mentions above it's better to run your own short link if possible.
One positive factor could be that if you want to move your links over to another site, say if you're in a market with volatility and burning domains is commonplace for example, then you can quickly just change the redirection target for your shortlink and get a head start on a new domain/url.
Buiboi
Junior Member
- Mar 9, 2019
- 107
- 27
Thanks for the replies everyone, perhaps I should give more context. We have a backlink opportunity with another website, however the webmaster refuses to use our naked URL, but has instead used a URL shortener that directs to us.
My main concern was that the shortener could 'expire or disappear for all we know' as opposed to linking directly to our naked URL. I was just wondering if there was more to this as I have never had this request before?
My main concern was that the shortener could 'expire or disappear for all we know' as opposed to linking directly to our naked URL. I was just wondering if there was more to this as I have never had this request before?
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,589
- 6,873
I would ask for explanation why, as it sounds like a trust issue, and if one side of a deal does not trust another then it's probably not worth going through with that deal.
- Jan 11, 2012
- 3,245
- 398
As stated above, its a bit weird to not link to a proper website URL and instead link to a shortner! If you have a decent website with Quality Content then it would be good for them to link your website directly as a reference and add in their content in a natural way!
Buiboi
Junior Member
- Mar 9, 2019
- 107
- 27
Noted and I agree. Very unusual request, considering my website is good quality. I'll take this as a red flag and decline.
Their reason for not allowing a link to the naked url, was
"we cannot put the URL directly in the blog as it does not look good. We place links on the anchor texts. I believe it won't affect the traffic as it directly redirects to your website."
Thanks everyone
Their reason for not allowing a link to the naked url, was
"we cannot put the URL directly in the blog as it does not look good. We place links on the anchor texts. I believe it won't affect the traffic as it directly redirects to your website."
Thanks everyone
Last edited:
- Aug 25, 2015
- 5,523
- 2,859
It seems to me they think you want to place the naked URL as the anchor text in the article.