Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#2An implementation that uses image maps without scripts:
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#3Those networks can still track user habits by clicking the URL. In one acorn, they will know they came from your site, any user agent information, screen size (via JS on the social network site), if they are logged in they will associate them going to your site even if they decide not to share the URL.
The only thing they aren't seeing is additional analytic data they're missing out by not having there JS installed on your site, but its still enough data that they can use on there end for targeting advertisements which is what they are using this data for.
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#4I don't have an opinion on the core of the article, but this bit at the end is not the best advice from a user experience standpoint.
"And I am seriously thinking into serve my own copy of Twitter Bootstrap scripts instead of serving them from the Google Network."
The point of using a CDN for common js/css is to serve it as close to your users as possible as well as increase the change that they already have it in their browser cache. Hosting it yourself just means your users have to make more round-trips to wherever in the world your server lives.
BTW, Google Hosted Libraries doesn't currently include Twitter Bootstrap. You're using NetDNA's BootstrapCDN.
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#5I don't have an opinion on the core of the article, but this bit at the end is not the best advice from a user experience standpoint. "And I am seriously thinking into serve my own copy of Twitter Bootstrap scripts instead of serving them from the Google Network." The point of using a CDN for common js/css is to serve it as close to your users as possible as well as increase the change that they already have it in th…
Sorry, you are right. it is NetDNA's
From the performance point of view is better to use that public CDN. But they have control over the javascript, and they may change it at anytime. Maybe too paranoid, so just thinking about it.
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#6Those networks can still track user habits by clicking the URL. In one acorn, they will know they came from your site, any user agent information, screen size (via JS on the social network site), if they are logged in they will associate them going to your site even if they decide not to share the URL. The only thing they aren't seeing is additional analytic data they're missing out by not having there JS installed o…
:(
At least I am trying to do my part. And that is the only thing I can do.
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#7An implementation that uses image maps without scripts: http://www.strchr.com/share_buttons
Thanks.
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#8A small typo in the title: Javascript and not java script.
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#9Your Facebook button says "Like", but it's a share. There's no liking involved.
Re: Why to use Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus share links and not buttons
#10I actually agree with this article...from an optimization standpoint. Whenever I've had to integrate paypal, youtube, or even coinbase...I always add the images to my static sprite sheet (to reduce http requests), and will serve a post href link...instead of button code suggested.
Even before the whole tracking was exposed, I always hated paypal's 1px blank gif that is integrated in their button code.