L(O*62).ONG: Make your URL longer

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Concept & Overall Reception

  • Service intentionally “lengthens” URLs, encoding targets into long strings of O/o.
  • Many commenters find it hilarious, clever, and aesthetically pleasing; framed as “silly web” / art.
  • Others see it as pointless or “dumb but lovable,” with little practical value beyond fun or QA stress‑testing.

How It Works (Encoding & Limits)

  • Implementation encodes the original URL as binary, then maps bits to O and o in the path.
  • GitHub source is referenced for serialization/deserialization logic.
  • People note URL length limits are effectively in the kilobytes; recursion can produce ~20KB URLs that browsers or HN may reject.
  • Discussion notes that subdomains could be used to increase length, but paths already allow very long URLs.

Certificates, Domains, and HTTPS

  • Author explains hitting limits: max 63 characters per domain label, and a 64‑character limit for certificate commonName.
  • Several hosting/CDN providers initially couldn’t issue Let’s Encrypt certs because they insisted on CN matching the full long hostname.
  • Others clarify CN is deprecated for server identity; subjectAltName (SAN) is the modern mechanism and doesn’t share the same length issue.
  • Updated information notes Let’s Encrypt now supports certs without CN; some providers still require CN unnecessarily.

.ong TLD and Eligibility

  • Debate on whether .ong is restricted to NGOs and if this site qualifies.
  • One side: policy requires public‑interest mission, structured organization, and “NGO‑like” status; a joke URL service seems non‑compliant.
  • Other side: requirements are vague and easy to satisfy; even small or frivolous groups with bylaws might qualify.
  • Clarified that purchase can happen before verification; audits may later revoke non‑compliant domains. Exact enforcement is unclear.

Abuse, Security, and Censorship Concerns

  • Multiple commenters warn it will be abused for spam/phishing, similar to URL shorteners.
  • Detailed account of a previous URL lengthener being used in spam campaigns via URL fragments (#...), which servers don’t see.
  • Recommendation: strip or neutralize fragments via client‑side redirect to reduce abuse.
  • Others argue any infrastructure (roads, postal mail) is abused; tech shouldn’t be uniquely blamed.
  • Some ask whether, being operated from China, the service is censored; thread does not resolve this.

Usability & UX Feedback

  • Many users are confused that the input requires a protocol (http:// or https://); suggestions to prefill or label this.
  • HN adds an interstitial warning for very long URLs, which some say pushes this firmly into “joke” territory.
  • Minor discussion of protocol detection and support for non‑HTTP schemes.

Related Projects & Nostalgia

  • Comparisons to defunct HugeURL and other novelty/“shady URL” generators.
  • Mention of similarly “breaking” long email addresses and domains used historically for testing form and validation robustness.