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!
Jesse Stay
· 1 year ago
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.
All Comments
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!