Comments on: Short URLs Equals Expanded Browsers? http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/ Sun, 14 Mar 2010 07:19:00 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Directory Submission http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-5154 Directory Submission Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:28:03 +0000 http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-5154 Well, I personally feel that the 140 character limit for URL length is not all that strict. Those who still wish to shorten their URLS can try Tr.im - which is a cool and fast application that is easy to use. Tr.im is designed to integrate with Twitter. Well, I personally feel that the 140 character limit for URL length is not all that strict. Those who still wish to shorten their URLS can try Tr.im – which is a cool and fast application that is easy to use. Tr.im is designed to integrate with Twitter.

]]> By: Directory Submission http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-5061 Directory Submission Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:28:03 +0000 http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-5061 Well, I personally feel that the 140 character limit for URL length is not all that strict. Those who still wish to shorten their URLS can try Tr.im - which is a cool and fast application that is easy to use. Tr.im is designed to integrate with Twitter. Well, I personally feel that the 140 character limit for URL length is not all that strict. Those who still wish to shorten their URLS can try Tr.im – which is a cool and fast application that is easy to use. Tr.im is designed to integrate with Twitter.

]]> By: Jas Talents and Models http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-5035 Jas Talents and Models Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:22:50 +0000 http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-5035 There has to be a limit to everything. 140 characters is fine with me. Tinyurl helps to shorten the url is great. It also helps to cover the real url which is of great help to people doing affiliate/referral marketing. There has to be a limit to everything. 140 characters is fine with me. Tinyurl helps to shorten the url is great. It also helps to cover the real url which is of great help to people doing affiliate/referral marketing.

]]> By: Phil Glockner http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-4896 Phil Glockner Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:55:58 +0000 http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-4896 So are you saying that Twitter should go *shorter*? Bold, man. Bold. So are you saying that Twitter should go *shorter*? Bold, man. Bold.

]]> By: Andy Skelton http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-4894 Andy Skelton Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:46:53 +0000 http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-4894 I devoted half of my last tweet to a URL. If 140 characters is a good limit, 70 can be better. I devoted half of my last tweet to a URL. If 140 characters is a good limit, 70 can be better.

]]> By: J. Phil http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/comment-page-1/#comment-4893 J. Phil Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:29:23 +0000 http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-4893 Ok yeah, before you say it, my lack of research is plain.. see: <a href="http://lifehacker.com/5048472/longurl-expands-short-urls-so-you-know-where-youre-going" rel="nofollow">this LifeHacker article</a> about some solutions already out there.<br><br>But my desire to see additional information harvested at the same time, plus my final thought are still perfectly valid! Ok yeah, before you say it, my lack of research is plain.. see: this LifeHacker article about some solutions already out there.

But my desire to see additional information harvested at the same time, plus my final thought are still perfectly valid!

]]>