31–40 of 118 posts
What Twitter needs is to remove the 140 character limitation. Nobody uses SMS anymore, especially when the content contains URLs to non-mobile-friendly sites.
Tons and tons of people still use twitter via SMS. @EV talked about this during his (otherwise boring) SXSW talk. I don't see them ditching that anytime soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen when those messages are delivered to a user's phone via SMS? There's still a nontrival amount of users having status updates/direct messages delivered to their mobile phones that probably wouldn't appreciate a message with a 50+ character URL (or the URL being stripped, effecting message integrity).
They could apply URL shortening to a tweet when delivering over SMS, if necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that would completely go against the concept of Twitter: short-form communication.
Is "the concept of Twitter" what people are getting value from? If not, forget "the concept". (In my circles, people seem to be getting value from "an opt-in audience of likeminded people who you may extract business value from someday which does not include your girlfriend, high school buddy, mother, or Farmville." People definitely are not using Twitter primarily for short-form communication: if they were, two twee…
That's not quite true; people read the short text to figure out whether they want to click the link. Even if long-form communications were allowed, there would still need to be a "title" field, for people to determine if they want to read the whole thing—which would basically be what is currently the tweet itself.
While the author has a right to be upset, her attitude toward the support staff — who likely have no control over the situation — is disgusting. ("Your apology is worthless", "Your refusal to check the link", etc. from the email conversation, and the ensuing comments on the blog post.)
Seriously. I've found it's easier to make someone do something when you don't have your teeth clenched at first, looking to attack. If she approached that with a "Could you help me figure out..." or "I think you should probably fix..." attitude, instead of a "screw you" one, she probably would have received a similarly gracious response.
(malice -> incompetence etc.)
I'm happy bitly is at least working on spam.
What did she expect to happen? That Bitly would concern themselves with her reputation? If you want a URL shortener who cares, your only option is to run your own. Bitly's only concern is for their business, nothing more.
She forgot #3: Just use one of the whitelisted shorteners she mentioned further up in the article, e.g. goo.gl.
"Google URL Shortener is currently available for Google products and not for broader consumer use."
How about putting some of the blame on Tweetdeck? Shouldn't "short enough" links be allowed to stay intact?