4 ms·
Very creative idea. However, I'm not convinced that mainstream users will get comfortable with it (because it looks "different"). This, plus the fact that eno
by dshah 18y ago
Very creative idea.
However, I'm not convinced that mainstream users will get comfortable with it (because it looks "different"). This, plus the fact that enough problems can exist from creation/sharing/clicking that it's likely just not worth the hassle.
Maybe it's just me, but lack of compatibility is a high price to pay for a character (or two) shorter URLs.
- thorax 18y agoIt's more of an experiment than anything else. It helps get browsers and tools up to standards and gives us a little fun/toy while we're at it. And the URLs are dramatically shorter than a character or two-- for example: http://➡.ws/껻 http://➡.ws/껻 (6 chars after protocol) versus: http://tinyurl.com/aqehn8 http://tinyurl.com/aqehn8 (16 chars after protocol) http://ri.ms/9i0 http://ri.ms/9i0 (9 chars after protocol) It only beats our own ri.ms shrinker by three characters, but that's still something people might consider. And because it uses unicode, it will be a very long time before it moves beyond even 2 character suffixes. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. :)
- agotterer 18y agoThe only problem is most people cant dictate or type the URL. Otherwise, A link to my blog is 1 character and thats awesome!