Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if Tweeter and other places that have message length limit ignore the length of the URL in you post?
They can't do that due to text-message length restrictions
They should have their own url shortner.
http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
61–70 of 150 posts
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#62The entire point of having a domain "name" is to have a human-readable representation of an address. Take the human readable part out of the URL and you're left with useless.
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#63Registrar: http://www.tonic.to/
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#64The fascination with url shorteners is really worrying and useless. Can we get past this fad?
I was against shorteners for a long while, but you can't argue against the fact that it lets you fit more in your message when you have a character limit to deal with, such as with Twitter, identica, FriendFeed, etc. I try to restrict my use of shorteners to microblogging. When following shortened links, I just use common sense and take into account how much I trust the source of the shortened URL. In practice, this…
The concern for me is that they disguise the original URL and if the shortner ever ceases to exist the context of a lot of microblogging posts will be lost for ever.
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#65Oddly when I try to "shorten" their url http://www.to/ it gets mapped into: http://www.to/jNUqgaaD8k
:)
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#66The entire point of having a domain "name" is to have a human-readable representation of an address. Take the human readable part out of the URL and you're left with useless.
This is an excellent point.
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#67can someone tell me the real domain name of http://to./ ?
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Countries can, and frequently do, sell the rights to their ccTLDs to third parties. For example, Verisign leases the rights to the .tv domain off the Tuvalu government for $50m/year.
Not exactly. Its $50MM over 12 years, so more like $4MM/year. I remember when that deal was announced, during the first bubble. Everyone thought it was foolish, now it seems genius.
For which side?
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#69The fascination with url shorteners is really worrying and useless. Can we get past this fad?
The stats that you can get out of something like bit.ly are quite useful. Or at least ego-strokingly hypnotic.
Re: http://to/ World's Shortest URL Shortener
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't CNet used to use http://com./ ?
For whatever reason they actually used com.com.
Because it was the dot-com boom, and what was better than one dot-com? TWO!
But yeah, they then proceeded to put everything under .com.com, so they had news.com.com, cnet.com.com etc. It was painfully stupid.