91–100 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could apply URL shortening to a tweet when delivering over SMS, if necessary.
Why would the users need to have a URL over SMS though? Couldn't it just say 'link?' Then the user could view the tweet later through another interface to get the actual URL.
Firstly, the hypocrisy of a URL shortener blocking another URL shortener's links because they can't be verified is hilarious. Secondly, if a person goes as far as to shorten every link they copy from their browser and use a Twitter client that shortens all links regardless of length, I hardly think they have much room to complain about the system they're fully backing. What did she expect to happen? That Bitly would…
This is not what happened. One person shortened the link from their browser, and tweeted that link. A second person re-tweeted that link, and their Twitter client re-shortened the already-shortened URL.
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.)
What's wrong with saying exactly what you mean?
Gee, how about we stop acting like we need to limit things to 140 characters? This isn't SMS you know. We do have the bandwidth to actually exchange useful information and real URLs. Twitter, bit.ly, et. al. are all pretty damn silly. Even back in the days of 300bd modems and BBS's we weren't this dumb.
Gee, how about we stop acting like we need to limit things to 140 characters? This isn't SMS you know. We do have the bandwidth to actually exchange useful information and real URLs. Twitter, bit.ly, et. al. are all pretty damn silly. Even back in the days of 300bd modems and BBS's we weren't this dumb.
Todd from bit.ly here. From day one, we've prized security, transparency, reliability, and openness at bit.ly. Along the way, we've made a number of product decisions based on those tenets. Among those are link permanence (link destinations don't change once created), the avoidance of anything that interferes with user experience (we've never framed, nor will we), and a dedicated focus on spam and malware detection,…
bit.ly is not doing right. cut the crap, fix it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the users need to have a URL over SMS though? Couldn't it just say 'link?' Then the user could view the tweet later through another interface to get the actual URL.
Some people in this world gone mad use SMS for twitter, and have a browser right there on their phone! :)
Gee, how about we stop acting like we need to limit things to 140 characters? This isn't SMS you know. We do have the bandwidth to actually exchange useful information and real URLs. Twitter, bit.ly, et. al. are all pretty damn silly. Even back in the days of 300bd modems and BBS's we weren't this dumb.
The brevity is what makes Twitter distinct from everything else.
If I make a pitch to somebody, do you think I should rest assured that they'll go for it if I word it in the following way, "Now I know that by almost all metrics this kind of behavior is bad, but we did some looking into what other people are doing, and it's unique."?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Tweetdeck, when you paste in the URL, you can see it turn into a bitly URL. It's not as if you don't know that's what's going to be posted. There is a checkbox next to where you compose your tweet for "Auto Shorten URLs" that you can uncheck to disable this behavior. It's right there in plain sight, not buried inside preference dialogs.
I think most people want long URLs to be shortened, but don't want short URLs to be re-shortened. But there's no checkbox for that.