140 characters just ain't enough

[Michaelmhmhmh]

I think it's fine. If it was 160 max you'd want 200. At some point the user must accept the limitations and work within it.

That is very true!

[Cybr]

Twitter. The logo is a little bird, not a tiger or some crap. People tweet, not roar or bark. Short posts, not long articles.

[FamousMassacre]

The reason it's short, Twitter wants you to get to the freakin point.

[ineed]

mk we should close this it's nonsensical to keep replying at this point

[superjoe128]

I don't think that is much of a problem. like omni said There needs to be limits and a read more button couldn't hurt.

[ineed]

Alright, hows this? In the New Twitter, when there is some sort of media, you can click the post and it will show up in a box next to the time line (YouTube videos, TwitPic pictures) so if someone uses a website like TwitLonger, instead of having to go to the alternate site, have the full message show up there like the other stuff. Hmm?

[amon91]

The question is how much is too much. You have to have a limit. If it were 160, 200, whatever, people would still complain.

[PaNiK]

The limitations set tweets apart from blogs.

[Disease]

Anyone else agree? Twitter should allow more characters (160 maybe?) and use a 'read more' button. It's just such a hassle to have to use external sites and link people, especially when doing the 'follow friday' stuff.

Twitter is microblogging and that's why the character limit is 140. Entries that should be going on Twitter will fit within 140 characters. If you need more to compose your entry then you really aren't microblogging.

The issue isn't layout or database constraints. It's an issue of the service's core beliefs and purpose. So your idea of a "read more" button will likely never happen.

[Cybr]

Twitter logo is a little bird. If it was a tiger, I'd expect a longer character limit.