3 ms·
I don't think risking url rendered as unicode boxes justifies the reduction of the url by 2 or 3 characters. Nice proof of concept though.
by DoubleMalt 12y ago
I don't think risking url rendered as unicode boxes justifies the reduction of the url by 2 or 3 characters.
Nice proof of concept though.
- berdario 12y agoNot only that, but since it will be encoded in utf-8 and then percent-encoded the number of bytes transmitted will actually increase: something as simple as 邗諾 becomes %E9%82%97%E8%AB%BE , 18 characters! Still, as other mentioned it's a neat idea that if widespread would make all kinds of encoding mistakes pop up :)
- billpg 12y agoBut twitter will only count it as two characters. (I guess.)
- pornel 12y agoTwitter doesn't pay attention to URL length any more. They will force all URLs through t.co even if that makes them longer.
- Karunamon 12y agoI've found that it doesn't like to shorten certain things, though I haven't quite nailed down what "certain things" are. I tried linking a recent blog post I'd done, which is at least 30 characters (along the lines of http://website/really-neat-post-title http://website/really-neat-post-title), and when I pasted or typed it into the tweet, it wouldn't autoshorten and would consume those characters. I find myself using goo.gl a distressing amount of time on Twitter.
- uptown 12y agoThe added benefit of using Google's URL shortener with Twitter is that you can send those links by DM while others are blocked.
- GrinningFool 12y agoThe interesting thing about that is that twitter will still generally redirect it. As an experiment some time ago I grabbed a random sampling of URLs from twitter's limited firehose - and found that on average they spread the user's trail across no fewer than 4 redirects before the final destination was reached. Some as many as 7 or 8. I've stopped posting URLs to twitter, out of respect for my followers.