Comments on: Twitter Adopts TinyURL

By: Online Printing UK

Online Printing UK — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:11:48 +0000

I am totally agree with Dan Lester. Hyperlinks are the best option with this every user save more character limits and he also express his thing with in 140 character limits more clearly.

By: sticker printing

sticker printing — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:21:26 +0000

Pretty cool stuff! well i use tweetdeck and it has an option to shorten a url

By: sticker printing

sticker printing — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:45:33 +0000

Thats the problem with the social web i guess -you cant just undo your actions !

By: junk removal

junk removal — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:25:38 +0000

I agree with what I think is your intrinsic point. Non canonical short URLs are ephemeral and can lead to ambiguity at best, and right now it's making services that have to interact with them

By: cheap cricket phones

cheap cricket phones — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:10:25 +0000

Now i facing problem while tweeting in twitter, when i tweet something with a link, my link does shape like tiny url, it gives me the same shape as normal URLs are.

By: Jesse Stay

Jesse Stay — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:06:24 +0000

The TinyURL integration has been around for at least several months now. It only shortens urls above a certain character limit, but my urls have been shortened by Twitter for quite awhile now. Also, if you use Snitter, there’s a feature in it that will use snurl.com, an even shorter url, to shorten your links.

By: Jesse Stay

Jesse Stay — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:06:24 +0000

The TinyURL integration has been around for at least several months now. It only shortens urls above a certain character limit, but my urls have been shortened by Twitter for quite awhile now. Also, if you use Snitter, there's a feature in it that will use snurl.com, an even shorter url, to shorten your links.

By: Dan Lester

Dan Lester — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:55:46 +0000

I’ve read a couple of blog posts over the last few days indicating that Twitter is using TinyURL’s API – and discussing whether Twitter should just make their own URL-shortener rather than relying on an outside service.

But I don’t see why they need a URL-shortener at all (one that acts as a forwarder, anyway). Why can’t the API just accept links directly without it counting towards the 140-character limit? Or they can charge us 20 characters per link if they insist; and display URLs as “http://www.socialtimes.com/2008…” or just as hyperlinks around words if possible.

I ‘get’ the 140-char limit, but having us worry about how to enter URLs, and whether or not the forwarding will work – not to mention our recipients having no idea where the link is going… Well, I think the whole thing is an unecessary limitation!

By: Jesse Stay

Jesse Stay — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:06:24 +0000

The TinyURL integration has been around for at least several months now. It only shortens urls above a certain character limit, but my urls have been shortened by Twitter for quite awhile now. Also, if you use Snitter, there's a feature in it that will use snurl.com, an even shorter url, to shorten your links.

By: Dan Lester

Dan Lester — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:55:46 +0000

I've read a couple of blog posts over the last few days indicating that Twitter is using TinyURL's API – and discussing whether Twitter should just make their own URL-shortener rather than relying on an outside service.

But I don't see why they need a URL-shortener at all (one that acts as a forwarder, anyway). Why can't the API just accept links directly without it counting towards the 140-character limit? Or they can charge us 20 characters per link if they insist; and display URLs as “http://www.socialtimes.com/2008…” or just as hyperlinks around words if possible.

I 'get' the 140-char limit, but having us worry about how to enter URLs, and whether or not the forwarding will work – not to mention our recipients having no idea where the link is going… Well, I think the whole thing is an unecessary limitation!