Is there any SEO advantage to sharing links on twitter using google's url shortener goo.gl/

[S_Curtis]

Hi is there any advantage to using <cite class="vurls">goo.gl/</cite> to shorten a URL for Twitter instead of other ones?  I had a thought that <cite class="vurls">goo.gl/</cite> might allow google to track click throughs and hence judge popularity.

[ProductPearson]

I don't believe this is the case. They used to be active on my Feedburner feed posts and there did not seem to be any ranking difference from it. We use a custom short URL (smt.io hooked up to bit.ly) and this seems to work fine. I think the focus of a short URL should be to show your relevance of your website. ie, mash.to, buff.ly, nyti.ms. You know what those companies are and therefore trust those links more. Goo.gl links can link to anything and might not be trusted as much.

Remember back when short URLs first came out with tinyurl, and everyone was using it to mask out shock sites etc via MSN messenger? Nobody trusts them unless they look reputable in my opinion. Would you click a bit.ly domain in your email, what about one from on.mash.to?

[EGOL]

If you use links passed through a shortener some people will not click them because the destination is unknown.

I never click shortened links.

[ProductPearson]

My point exactly.

[FedeEinhorn]

But all twitter links are shortened to t.co link. Using a custom shortener makes it easier to recognize a "better" source (CNN = cnn.it, Search Engine Land = selnd.com) while allowing you more space for the tweet.

If I would have to choose, I would definitely go with a custom shortener over a free one. Bit.ly even offers custom shorteners for free (if you have the domain).

[KeriMorgret]

I use wheregoes.com to see where a shortened link goes without clicking it.