Another question will you HAVE to use include_entities=true to see the display_url or will it always be included?
On Jun 10, 4:21 am, ASK <theac...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
