This is shown on unanswered posts:

Know someone who can answer? Share a link to this question via email, twitter, or facebook.

Why is this removed when someone gives an answer/suggestion?

Surely "Share a link to this question via email, twitter, or facebook." should remain.

It's often the case that the user who gives a poor (first) answer to my question stops me from easily posting the question to my Twitter followers who would give me a better response.

  • 2
    ah, the horrors of getting answers too quickly .. share faster, then? :) – Jeff Atwood May 18 '11 at 9:48

On all sites except SU, SF, SO -- there are (additional) share icons under the question vote arrows.


(source: stackoverflow.com)

We didn't feel that SO, SU, and SF needed the same level of promotion as new Stack Exchange 2.0 sites, thus it is not enabled there.

  • Ok, I understand where you are coming from whereas promotion is concerned. Perhaps I'm nitpicking now, but from a users perspective it's a little frustrating that this does not provide the same functionality. I know if it had the same functionality "We didn't feel that SO, SU, and SF needed the same level of promotion" wouldn't apply but what I'd like to see is the URL and a shortened URL given. That way there is no intermediary service between SO and Twitter; copy, paste, post. – Adam Lynch May 18 '11 at 10:00
  • @adam the short link is available, click where the image is pointing, on the link item, where the text says short permalink to this question – Jeff Atwood May 18 '11 at 10:03
  • When I say shortened I mean something like t.co/aWoqGWy which you would if you were to use the "Share a link to this question via email, twitter, or facebook." twitter link – Adam Lynch May 18 '11 at 10:10
  • @Adam - the permalink is quite short - this questions one is "meta.stackexchange.com/q/91759/59303" (just over 40 characters - it will be 5 characters shorter on SO). – ChrisF May 18 '11 at 10:52
  • @ChrisF Ok. I'm nitpicking and I'm sorry but t.co/aWoqGWy is only 12 characters long. Clearly, you don't think it's worth it and that's ok – Adam Lynch May 18 '11 at 11:11
  • @Adam - you get me wrong. Twitter needs it to be as short as possible, but I've not had problems fitting my words around the link SO provides. You could also remove your ID from the link (means you don't get Publicist badge etc. though). – ChrisF May 18 '11 at 11:16
  • @ChrisF No, I understand you. But my point was that with 128 characters (140 -t.co...) you have more room. What I'll be doing from now on is taking the SO short URL and going to some third party service like bit.ly and shortening it some more before putting it in my tweet. That way my ID is still in the link. But, unless stated so in my tweet, my followers won't know it's a SO link. That's another reason why I'd like a URL like s.to/ac23d45 || s.to/flow/ac23d45. People would start to recognize it as SO links. So you would not have to specify that in the tweet/post. – Adam Lynch May 18 '11 at 11:31
  • @Adam: Am I the only one that thinks the proposal Stack Overflow have two easily-recognized domains is a bit absurd? The regular stackoverflow.com and the proposed s.to/flow/. That's just silly. Why should anyone have to "start to recognize" those obfuscated links as SO links? Why not just use the actual link to SO? – Cody Gray May 18 '11 at 12:17
  • @CodyGray well there's both youtube.com & youtu.be, which really serves a purpose. It would stop people using third party URL shorteners. Every time someone shortens a SO URL like that, SO loses out on some possible free advertising (to someone who reads the tweet, not necessarily clicks the link). If I saw someone post "PHP variables recognized_SO_URL" I'd be more inclined to click it than "PHP variables bit.ly/~" because I know where it's leading me; a SO question, most likely asked by the poster. I might want to help. As opposed to a tutorial on PHP variables for example, which I don't need – Adam Lynch May 18 '11 at 13:23
  • @CodyGray I see where you're coming from. But tweets are limited enough without having a reduction of ~40 characters. Surely it's not good any time someone is forced to go to another website, to share links to your website. I know that's a bit vague but you get my point. www.google.com/?q=hello (only 23 characters in length) can be shortened to goo.gl/y70wL . But yes, goo.gl for google.com is much nicer than s.to for stackoverflow.com – Adam Lynch May 18 '11 at 13:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .