"Don't link to other sites or you'll improve their ranking. Link to mine instead" is pretty much what this site is saying.<p>This is why Google created rel="nofollow"[1] and if you are really worried about where you pass PageRank to it is a much better alternative than linking to some random 3rd party site while passing value back to them.<p>[1]<a href="https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/96569?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/96569?hl=en</a>
Fails to parse <a href="http://io/" rel="nofollow">http://io/</a> as valid URL. Same with IDNs, <a href="http://пример.испытание/" rel="nofollow">http://пример.испытание/</a>. Okay, that's obscure cases, but when you're writing yet another link shortener you really should know quite a bit about URIs (and IRIs).<p>Practical problem is, service does not make distinction between http and https schemes - typing in <a href="https://example.org/" rel="nofollow">https://example.org/</a> yields <a href="http://www.donotlink.com/ZG" rel="nofollow">http://www.donotlink.com/ZG</a> which leads to <a href="http://example.org/" rel="nofollow">http://example.org/</a>.
Well, that's the same like tinyurl or any other url-shortener, except that this page isn't advertised as such.<p>Why not using the nofollow attribute[1]? It exists for this specific use-case.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow</a>
So what happens when this site gets popular and the owner decides to 'punk' all of the other sites by turning it into a content farm?<p>edit: or if they get hacked and the same happens
I prefer to let the search engines worry whether a link is supposed to pass link juice or not. I've already given Google my fair share of information these days anyway.