71–80 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't do that due to text-message length restrictions
They should have their own url shortner.
Then again, people shouldn't click random links.
Have they just broken every single url regex out there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The former. It shows the reader not only where I'm sending them, but even gives them an idea of what to expect, not to mention the whole dead links problem that will inevitably occur when these sights finally go down. What I would normally do is something like this " Check out my map here [1] " and at the end put "[1] http...", that way a giant ten page url doesn't interfere with the message, yet I don't have to shor…
I like your footnote idea, though I think it seems fairly unnatural for casual communication. To me, short URLs seem like the more user-friendly solution. I'm also still not sold on the dead link problem for two reasons. 1. You're already relying on one site (in this case Google) not to go down or change its dynamic URL patterns. Certainly adding another layer increases the chances of a dead link, but any time you li…
I dunno, you can use url shorteners if you want, but Im not convinced of their usefulness, thats all.
Can someone give me a quick introduction on how this was done?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with that statement. Even before the rise of microblogging, URL shorteners were helpful in certain situations. Which URL would you rather paste in an email for readability's sake: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Oak... or http://tr.im/Gw8B In context, the recipient should have no problem anticipating the URL's end point (i.e., you probably just wrote something like, "here are some directio…
The former. Even though it's 355 characters, at least it tells me it's a Google maps link. Which the shortened version doesn't. There are some situations where URL shortening is arguably useful. But there's absolutely no reason why "microblogging" should be one of them.
Have they just broken every single url regex out there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should have their own url shortner.
Every major website should have their own URL shorter. People would be more willing and trusting to click a random link found on Twitter if it's from Gizmodo's short URL rather than bit.ly. Then again, people shouldn't click random links.
What does this even mean? The web's primary use case is clicking random links as defined in some context. Shortened links rarely show up in a tweet without any defining context.