Why do we need address reduction services?
In the comments to the topic, I figured out why tinyurl is needed. And did not find out.
Therefore, I want to share more of my bewilderment. I stopped using Twitter because I’m annoyed with address reduction services like tinyurl.com. In addition, links are tied to Twitter forcibly.
The formal purpose of Tinyurl on Twitter is clear: shorten the link so that more characters from the hundred hundred and forty hundred are left to formulate a thought.
')
However, abbreviated links have a wild number of minuses:
But, perhaps, a non-existent problem is being solved. Let's look at the root.
a) because there are technical limitations? No, even sms are composite (long messages are sent as a sequence of short). For that matter, unicode single sms are limited to 70 characters. Therefore, the correct technical limit is 70 characters, not 140.
b) because the post with a strict limit on the length should be more accurate, more sparkling and concise. It seems to be obchno converge on this option. At the same time, it is logical to assume that 140 characters are a kind of magic number specially selected and balanced by the creators of twitter to optimize the brevity and completeness of thought that fits into this restriction.
Consider a Twitter post consisting of an apt description of a web page and a link to it. It is not good to insert long links, because there will be little space for description (the characters will certainly be less than the ideal number, 140-a). The length of the description depends on the length of the link. And this is not fair.
Komprimissny option: use abbreviations. In this case, all links become constant length. Still, the character limit is reduced by the length of the short link.
Why not just exclude the link length from counting the number of characters at the service level? In this case, you can additionally impose a restriction on one link to the post.
Benefits:
Some believe that link shorteners reduce visual noise from long links. In this case, as the link text, you can use an arbitrarily short line. You can even replace the link text with some neat icon, for example
.
Well, for example, compare the first tweet with the second:
Thus, the only legitimate area of application for shortcuts is to send a link by phone / sms / in the form of graffiti on walls.
Therefore, I want to share more of my bewilderment. I stopped using Twitter because I’m annoyed with address reduction services like tinyurl.com. In addition, links are tied to Twitter forcibly.
pros
The formal purpose of Tinyurl on Twitter is clear: shorten the link so that more characters from the hundred hundred and forty hundred are left to formulate a thought.
')
Minuses
However, abbreviated links have a wild number of minuses:
- it is not clear where you are taken by reference
Personally, I always look at the address of the link in the status bar (if it is not known what it is, for example, the title of the topic on the browser). Such a habit. - it is unclear whether I was already on the site (even the browser will not be able to highlight the link in the appropriate color)
- the link will die with the shortcut
- The link may suddenly lead me to a phishing, pornography or pornography site.
I do not mind porn, but I would like to know in advance that I will go to pornoxxx.com, and not somewhere. - The link opens a little longer because of the unnecessary redirection (besides, the habra-, digg- or techcranch effect probably also acts on shortcuts).
Exposing
But, perhaps, a non-existent problem is being solved. Let's look at the root.
1. Why do we want to climb 140 characters?
a) because there are technical limitations? No, even sms are composite (long messages are sent as a sequence of short). For that matter, unicode single sms are limited to 70 characters. Therefore, the correct technical limit is 70 characters, not 140.
b) because the post with a strict limit on the length should be more accurate, more sparkling and concise. It seems to be obchno converge on this option. At the same time, it is logical to assume that 140 characters are a kind of magic number specially selected and balanced by the creators of twitter to optimize the brevity and completeness of thought that fits into this restriction.
2. Does the length of the link to sparkle?
Consider a Twitter post consisting of an apt description of a web page and a link to it. It is not good to insert long links, because there will be little space for description (the characters will certainly be less than the ideal number, 140-a). The length of the description depends on the length of the link. And this is not fair.
Komprimissny option: use abbreviations. In this case, all links become constant length. Still, the character limit is reduced by the length of the short link.
Proposed Decision
Why not just exclude the link length from counting the number of characters at the service level? In this case, you can additionally impose a restriction on one link to the post.
Benefits:
- on the one hand, the accompanying statement of optimal length (140 characters)
- on the other hand, the link works as expected by the user.
Other subtleties
Some believe that link shorteners reduce visual noise from long links. In this case, as the link text, you can use an arbitrarily short line. You can even replace the link text with some neat icon, for example
.Well, for example, compare the first tweet with the second:
Thus, the only legitimate area of application for shortcuts is to send a link by phone / sms / in the form of graffiti on walls.
- What do you think, is such widespread use of abbreviations justified?
- Why do people shorten URLs outside of tweets?
- Could the proposed method solve the problem of short posts?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/63301/
All Articles