How disruptive - and not in the "good way", for the most part. For example, I've recently been developing a link shortening platform with some unique aspects (similar to Twitter annotations). Here is a mashup that leverages my platform in conjunction with Twitter: http://mvtweets.com/tweetmap. Just like Twitter intends, I parse shortened URL's to display a truncated destination domain (or a TwitPic thumbnail, or a YouTube embed), but the href in the anchor tag is the shortened mv2.me link, so the click-through can be tracked.
Part of the data feeding this map-mashup comes from the @mvtweets Twitter account. Another part comes from the mv2.me platform and API, which provides the calendar and GPS metadata. Now I'll have to rewrite it to accommodate the new link wrapping scenario. Will we be seeing changes to the data Twitter API returns, so that the task of adjusting our code is made easier? And will I have to make the hrefs all t.co's? The line is very unclear to me - I'm using a whole bunch of API's mashed together, 3rd party and my own - why should I have to make analyzing my map's click-throughs more difficult for myself? I fear innovations such as the one I have shared with you above will be fewer and farther in between due to such policy changes. We will soon be seeing how fragile the Twitter ecosystem can be. (on a side note, regarding my map: isn't it funny how Chrome, Google's browser, is the one technology that can't seem to handle Google's YouTube technology ebmedded inside Google's map technology? sorry Chrome users!) On Jun 9, 10:24 pm, John Meyer <john.l.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/9/2010 7:00 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:13:04 -0700 > > "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky"<zn...@borasky-research.net> wrote: > > >> Quoting Ken<k...@cimas.ch>: > > >>> Not exactly spyware, but deceptive. Don't expect the public to > >>> appreciate this. > > >> How is this deceptive? Who is being deceived, and how? > > > How? There is text that is marked as a link, for example > > "http://nasa.gov";, and it does not go to nasa.gov. > > > If a user clicks on the link saying nasa.gov, it goes to t.co, > > which does business with a third party, not telling the user anything > > about it. > > > How is that *not* deceptive? > > As long as the terms are clearly laid out and Twitter is open about > where the user is being sent I see no problem with it in terms of > openness. However, what I am wondering is why Twitter would feel the > need to wrap other URL shorteners. Won't that increase the time needed > to get to the final destination?
