5 ms·
(1) Keeping it simple and consistent and (2) they want to ensure that as much relevant traffic goes through t.co as possible. If you want to lock people into t
by glitch 11y ago
(1) Keeping it simple and consistent and (2) they want to ensure that as much relevant traffic goes through t.co as possible. If you want to lock people into t.co URLs, there's no reason for them to play games otherwise unless it truly starts eating into the character count. It's an avenue for profit through data mining. Also, the notion of blocking phishing sites is also there, but the real reason is data mining. They want as much desired, relevant data as possible about the URLs people are using on their service — where they're going, when they're going there, who's going there, etc., etc., etc. In the data, there is money. It's also about other untaped potential in being the middle man (e.g., injected ads) — not that they'll necessarily do such a thing, but from their perspective it's good to be in the position to exploit as many avenues of profit as possible.
- TheDong 11y agoYou misunderstood. I meant that they could use the minimum of those two lengths when checking the length of your tweet while still turning it into a t.co url either way. All traffic still goes through t.co. The behavior is identical to today except that it's simpler and consistent because it doesn't make my 140 character tweet invalid.
- glitch 11y agoThey could do something along those lines, but that would not be "keeping things simple". Plus, there is not significant motivation for them to do it — plain and simple. They could, but so far it's not worth the time/money investment. Every little feature, every little bit of work added and layered onto things has an associated cost/benefit to it. Simply put, it's not worth it to them at this present time.