Wait... that tweet is over 1,000 characters long. How long is the post limit on Twitter now, and why is Mastodon still clinging to a (IMHO very silly) 500-character limit???
There is no real need for the limit to be that low, it's more about intention I think from what I remember I think gragon was meaning that was a nice place for microblogging, if you want to post something longer it would be a better fit for a full blog.
Now for me personally that doesn't really make sense, as what we get instead are the really long threads which are a lot harder to follow, and gets a bit unwieldy often.
I say make the limit 5,000 chars everywhere (heck, 5,120, just to be nerdy ;), and set up length filters if you just don't want to see toots past a certain length.
The whole reason for my #MicroToot toots is to demonstrate that a very short length limit (the original 140 chars from twitter) is a valid creative restraint, but 500 honestly just gets in the way.
I mean the -phore clients already collapses them into a "long toot" CW like thing, so that I can scroll over it, or click on it to expand it, it's basically a solved problem in that way at least ๐
I don't like that particular implementation (because you don't see any of the toot without clicking on the button), but I like how some clients will show you a stub of the toot and give you the option to see the rest.
To me, that completely satisfies the "this should be used for microblogging, not blogging" complaint, which is valid.
My other criticism of 500 characters is that going over 500 characters still isn't enough to make a proper blog post.
My shortest blog post is 740 characters. My longest is 20740. The average is 4958.
So, it's not like you could go over 500 characters and realistically say, "Oops, too long! Let's make it a blog post!" Yeah, no.
Some of the Mastodon instances have tweaked the limit. Forks like Hometown and Glitch Social let you set a limit in the interface (and default to a larger one, AFAIK). Alternate servers like snac and GoToSocial have a larger limit by default.
I know, although it's not the default, nor even configurable in the admin interface. You have to tweak the source code. (Which, to be fair, is probably really trivial, unless you're on something like mastodon.host)
R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • • •sotolf
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • • •There is no real need for the limit to be that low, it's more about intention I think from what I remember I think gragon was meaning that was a nice place for microblogging, if you want to post something longer it would be a better fit for a full blog.
Now for me personally that doesn't really make sense, as what we get instead are the really long threads which are a lot harder to follow, and gets a bit unwieldy often.
R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to sotolf • • •Totally agree.
I say make the limit 5,000 chars everywhere (heck, 5,120, just to be nerdy ;), and set up length filters if you just don't want to see toots past a certain length.
The whole reason for my #MicroToot toots is to demonstrate that a very short length limit (the original 140 chars from twitter) is a valid creative restraint, but 500 honestly just gets in the way.
sotolf
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • • •R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to sotolf • • •I don't like that particular implementation (because you don't see any of the toot without clicking on the button), but I like how some clients will show you a stub of the toot and give you the option to see the rest.
To me, that completely satisfies the "this should be used for microblogging, not blogging" complaint, which is valid.
My other criticism of 500 characters is that going over 500 characters still isn't enough to make a proper blog post.
My shortest blog post is 740 characters. My longest is 20740. The average is 4958.
So, it's not like you could go over 500 characters and realistically say, "Oops, too long! Let's make it a blog post!" Yeah, no.
5000 characters, though? Definitely.
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • •R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •sotolf
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • • •R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to sotolf • • •0x1400 is still nice enough, I think, as a compromise between "perfect" binary numbers and human-significant numbers.
I think 5000 is a good threshold, but 4096 isn't too bad, either.
Heck, even 1024 would be an improvement.
P.S., did anyone else memorize powers of 2 from 0 to 16 as teenager for fun? XD
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • •R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •Alec Sargent
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • • •R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to Alec Sargent • • •Patrick Georgi
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • • •R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to Patrick Georgi • • •Sijmen Mulder ๐งโ๐ป
in reply to R.L. Dane ๐ต • • •R.L. Dane ๐ต
in reply to Sijmen Mulder ๐งโ๐ป • • •๐ฉfแตฃ
in reply to Sijmen Mulder ๐งโ๐ป • • •