3 ms·
Seems like it makes a lot of sense to do this. They don't want to become a de-facto mirror for the content, they want to provide it only to people who are actua
by tomkarlo 14y ago
Seems like it makes a lot of sense to do this. They don't want to become a de-facto mirror for the content, they want to provide it only to people who are actually their users. I'd rather have that, along with a bias towards sharing the original link, than a lot of sharing of the reflowed content.
- incision 14y ago>They don't want to become a de-facto mirror for the content, they want to provide it only to people who are actually their users. Surely there's a way that could be prevented while retaining the benefit of exposing potential new users to the service? The current sharing feature sends 800 character URLs pointing to email.getpocket.com. I'd think something could be put into and parsed out of that monster string to prevent the mirror scenario. Send the first X clicks to a reflowed version with with a non-invasive sign-up option, send the rest to a sign-up page sans reflow.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]