Comments on: Twitter Adopts TinyURL http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/ The Social Times covers news, analysis and insight pertaining to the social web. Learn how to brand yourself and your company via the social web. Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:53:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Jesse Stay http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-304 Jesse Stay Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:06:24 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-304 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. 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 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-5186 Jesse Stay Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:06:24 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-5186 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 <a href="http://snurl.com">snurl.com</a>, an even shorter url, to shorten your links. 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 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-302 Dan Lester Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:55:46 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-302 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! 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: Dan Lester http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-5185 Dan Lester Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:55:46 +0000 http://www.socialtimes.com/2008/01/twitter-adopts-tinyurl/#comment-5185 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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! 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!

]]>