"After all, Twitter is a great big, public conversational platform — the fact that you could follow chats between other users you cared about was part of its draw."
Insane. For me it is the complete opposite. Having to read a personal conversation between two people is perhaps the primary reason I do not use Twitter. Far too much noise. And they should count hashtags as double (the other main reason why I cannot stand Twitter).
Do not use Instagram either, but for other reasons. :)
I tried using Instagram. Downloaded the app and created an account. It promptly emailed everyone in my address book notifying them that I created an account. Deleted the app and my account. Never again.
I almost completely ditched Twitter because I got sick of attempting to condense my thoughts into blurbs a toddler with ADD could understand.
On twitter, I have thousands of followers and I'm lucky to get even one reply or mention.
On Facebook, however, I have about 300 friends, and I can post an actual paragraph along with a photo or a video. I often get 30 likes and 20 comments on the posts.
Facebook does a much better job of facilitating real conversations, and yet it still allows people to post 140 character blurbs (if they want to).
I get it though. Twitter is what it is, and there are tons of people who love it. I'm not one of those people.
haha I thought about that too. Clever but slightly misleading. Surely they could have come up with something true and equally attractive but then again it's the battle of "who gets the story out first"
Is it misleading to call a spade a spade? There's a character limit, they're just going to arbitrarily decide what is and isn't a character based on engagement feedback they get from advertisers.
Removing the ".@" syntax is a mistake. I don't always want to broadcast replies. I still don't understand why URLs are still included within the 140 char limit either. Can someone explain that better than the article?
Urls where fixed to 22, then 23, lately 24 chars. It's the length of the actual shortened url.
I've been working with people helping social media for a bit, and one common issue in preparing a list of tweets to schedule is making sure the length is ok. So you end up with silly xls files where you have a url column, a text column, etc. and weird formulas to compute the size.
I think Twitter just wants to simplify the life. You can send 140 chars of text/comment. Mentions, urls, images, etc. are not counted because normal people aren't counting like that.
He was asking why URLs ARE still being counted as part of the length – Twitter seems to have excluded everything except for those. Your reply demonstrates how arbitrary that distinction is :)
What they mean is that .@ isn't getting removed -- by default your replies won't be broadcast to everyone (same rules apply as always) -- but since you no longer see the leading @mentions, you physically cannot do .@ on the tweet. The right way to do it going forward will be a retweet on your own tweet.
Apropos character limits: maybe you could stop counting (2001) etc. towards the 80 character limit in submissions?
Because a few times I have left out the year since I couldn't find a good shorter title, and then you added the year afterwards. I would have done that myself. :-)
I get why this is news to many people, but when you get down to it, a company removed its own arbitrary limitation. It's really difficult to give a shit about such things.
EDIT: I'm aware of the original reasoning for the limitation, so perhaps "arbitrary" is not the best adjective.
Interesting move toward the end of the 140 character limit. Let's see how it goes but I'm pretty sure people will still complain about the limitation, until they really ditch it...
There was nothing special to them though. Convention was just ".@user" but you could also have used "Hello @user!" The point was to force Twitter from treating it as a recipient-only message.