Is CC.directory/354d6534 good for bandwidth shortening

Is CC.directory/354d6534 good for bandwidth shortening.

I have a two letter (.)directory domain and im wondering if I put my blog posts for the public on it would it save money in bandwidth.

 

Alot of bloggers and news companies are putting content on short domains 4 letters including the extention to 6 to save money from viewers from social media and such. i dont know the benifit except that they do it for economic reasons.

 

it would add up to bandwidth
If you have shorter pages

 

In addition to the viewable content, what about bloated underlying code?

For example, loading 384K of minified jQueery when the same exact thing can be done in one line of javascript code? It irritates me to no end when I have to wait for jQueery to download on a site that NEVER calls jQueery at all, or only calls it ONE time when a simple javascript call would do exactly the same thing.

Or loading 1000k of CSS when 100K is more than enough?

Or loading DOZENS of js/css files when at most 2 of each are needed? Think about the handshaking time involved.

 

Generally if the URI in question is a "normal" one of less than 80 characters, link shortening is more placebo than fact, and in the age of "user friendly" links that tell you exactly where you are going in their title (see your address bar on this thread) it is in fact bad usability to even go there.

About the only time it is really useful is on social media chat or garbage like twitter where you're either limited by post size limit or the comfortable size limit of the chat window.

Other than that, short link services are a scam trying to spy on people or gather advertising revenue for a third party -- or worse, something used by scammers to try and hide their intermediary information gathering or the fact that they are trying to dupe you into clicking on a link that could go almost anywhere.

To that end, unless you're running a dirtbag scam, do not do it on your own site. All you're doing is damaging the trust factor and making the site harder for end users to actually use.

It is a bit like HTML and CSS minification which on any decent modern setup is more myth than fact in terms of actual benefits, except that it can be used for far more nefarious purposes. As both @sarahk and @mmerlinn suggest if you're that worried about bandwidth you probably have other things to address long before you go the dirtball sleazebag route.

Other things like (using the link in your signature as an example) endless pointless JavaScript on pages that don't seem to even warrant its presence, static scripting in the markup, train wreck laundry lists of how NOT to write HTML/CSS like bootcrap, multiple stylesheets for no good reason resulting in more handshaking overhead (which can have far-reaching penalties many times worse than markup size!), sending the style to "all" flipping the bird at non-screen media, that X-UA nonsense that should only be used to drag IE back to legacy behavior NOT the other way around, META no legitimate UA gives a flying fig about and the one or two that do will fall back on your existing tags and META (sorry but og:title and twitter:title are some of the dumbest shit in existence), scripting only elements in the markup for things that shouldn't even be using Scripting since who knows how many users you're telling to sod off, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Since if you don't know what's wrong with classes like this:

class="whitemnu hidden-xs hidden-sm"

you need to take a few steps back and learn some more about HTML.

 

In the future they may be a plug in or some thing that corilates .directory as an entity and logs it as equal in bandwidth to .co which is short since there is a list of extentions available.

 

whats making sense is putting images and assets onto another domain without using cookies on that domain... that saves a bit traffic but honestly its not worth the hassle

 

Looks to me like the OP is using this as a way to increase post counts without being pimp-slapped for posting spam.