Right I'm trying to get some information on impact of blocking url shortening services.

 

There is some spam going around right now and nested several layers deep within it are links to a compromised website reached via a url shortening service - bla.st

 

I'm not familiar with http://Bla.st so I was trying to do a bit of research onlone but I'm run into Google (and others) dumb ass searches.

 

If you search for bla.st on google it thinks you mean - Blast

If you search for "bla.st" on google it thinks you mean - Blast

If you search for "bla.st" on google then hit verbatim search it thinks you mean - Blast

 

I don't want to know about feckin blast I want to know about bla.st. There is a period in the middle, grammer counts dammit!

 

Wolfram gives me some data but no real information.

 

 

 

Typically  got an answer 2 sec later.

 

In google you can't, not possible.

 

But DuckDuckGo does let you do it.

 

However the searches are much narrower.

 

So we're going to block it anyway and see if anyone moans.

On the basis that it's one such service that promises "money each time you share" I think you/your company are far better off by it being blocked :)

 

I usually handle this sort of thing by user education - if you are the user of such a service, use a better one. If you are the recipient of such a link, talk to whoever sent it, and get them to use a better service. :)

On 10/01/2017 at 12:10, Aspman said:

If you search for bla.st on google it thinks you mean - Blast

If you search for "bla.st" on google it thinks you mean - Blast

If you search for "bla.st" on google then hit verbatim search it thinks you mean - Blast

 

A bit late, but you probably wanted

 

site: "bla.st"

Was about to go "nah it doesn't blah blah blah".

 

But you're right that does work.

 

Hadn't used the "site:" flag that way before.

Forcing the 'site' in that way - like it 

For info: 

search_ref.pdf