[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate tweets showing in the stream
I'll try. i have it storing the data in redis until another script comes and gobbles it up. i'll have to make it write it to disk. On Nov 5, 12:41 am, John Kalucki j...@twitter.com wrote: I'm assuming that this is on Site Streams. It's very odd that the tweet ids and created_at timestamps are so very close together. Can you post the raw, unparsed JSON that you are receiving? Just one example would be sufficient to get started. -John Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki Twitter, Inc. On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Jayrox jay...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I am Jay the developer of tweelay.net /wavehello I am getting a bunch of tweets duplicated in my stream. I have attached a small group of the tweets that were noticed by one of my users. I have noted which tweets you can actually pull up on twitter.com with the -real notation and the ones noted as -dupe have a unique ID but are unable to be pulled up on twitter.com I am currently using phirehose (PHP) to consume my tweets from the stream. Twitter_Name Twitter_UID Tweet_ID Tweet_Str (truncated by phpMyAdmin) Post_Date Post_Time scootinater 10167662 322418165948420 I think I'll just lay right here and take a nap…he... 2010-11-04 19:04:05 -dupe scootinater 10167662 322418165948416 I think I'll just lay right here and take a nap…he... 2010-11-04 19:04:05 -real scootinater 10167662 340148264894460 Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the cutest of t... 2010-11-04 20:14:32 -dupe scootinater 10167662 340148264894464 Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the cutest of t... 2010-11-04 20:14:32 -real scootinater 10167662 339829959172100 And the doctor said no more monkeys jumping on th... 2010-11-04 20:13:16 -dupe scootinater 10167662 339829959172096 And the doctor said no more monkeys jumping on th... 2010-11-04 20:13:16 -real scootinater 10167662 349977012338690 @jayrox hey J! Have a teensy problem :) (don't you... 2010-11-04 20:53:35 -dupe scootinater 10167662 349977012338689 @jayrox hey J! Have a teensy problem :) (don't you... 2010-11-04 20:53:35 -real scootinater 10167662 352786432659460 @jayrox that is strange?? 2010-11-04 21:04:45 -dupe scootinater 10167662 352786432659456 @jayrox that is strange?? 2010-11-04 21:04:45 -real -- Twitter developer documentation and resources:http://dev.twitter.com/doc API updates via Twitter:http://twitter.com/twitterapi Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list Change your membership to this group: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk -- Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list Change your membership to this group: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I don't know about paygrade, but more than a few Twitter employees follow i80chains during the season. We hear you. I just don't know what to suggest be done about the situation. On Oct 15, 11:09 am, Toxic phoneybolo...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com wrote: 1. Duplicate tweets HAS always been considered a violation. Sure, it's always been a reason to kick someone off, but by attempting to automatically police it, you've managed to take out a couple of quite legitimate services, some of which were using twitter in new and interesting ways. But for those collecting examples of collateral damage, I've got another one for you. Perhaps someone above the approptiate pay grade at Twitter is a skier/rider? Because this change in behavior (even if it's not a change in policy) is going to eliminate two resources that Bay Area skiers tend to use. Neither seems like something that Twitter wants to shut off, but neither can continue to operate with the current de-duplication filters: @i80chains. That rebroadcasts Caltrans's announcements for Interstate 80 in the Sierra Nevadas. During the winter, it lets people know when chains are required to drive over Donner Pass. When chain control is turned off, it tweets OPEN: NO RESTRICTIONS (or something to that effect). That all clear tweet is getting caught by the filters, which leaves out-of-date information on the stream/feed. It is as important to receive a tweet that says you don't need chains as it is to receive one that says you'll need them from Kingvale to Truckee, but as of right now, only one is allowed to get through. @tahoe_weather. Rebroadcasts National Weather Service warnings/ watches and announcements relevant to people in Tahoe. It also has a No active advisory tweet that it sends out when there are no longer any active weather statements. Again, these all clear tweets are getting filtered, which rather drastically reduces the usefulness of the bot. 2. In the Spam section of that policy we also clearly state that the rules will be changing as we adapt to new tactics I understand that it's impossible to really define spam and/or abuse, and that anything that's ultimately an announcement-bot is going to be walking a fine line. But those two bots above seem like they're not remotely abusive, do seem like they're useful, and they're getting swept up among the spammers.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
It's also somewhat remarkable that at #140tc, the official Twitter conference, organized and moderated by Twitter, Guy Kawasaki and several others advised the audience to re-broadcast your tweets regularly to ensure your followers see them (Guy suggested every 8 hours for a period of 24 hours - I believe it was then the @starbucks guy who echoed that). Don't remember the Twitter moderator censoring GK... On Oct 15, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Toxic phoneybolo...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com wrote: 1. Duplicate tweets HAS always been considered a violation. Sure, it's always been a reason to kick someone off, but by attempting to automatically police it, you've managed to take out a couple of quite legitimate services, some of which were using twitter in new and interesting ways. But for those collecting examples of collateral damage, I've got another one for you. Perhaps someone above the approptiate pay grade at Twitter is a skier/rider? Because this change in behavior (even if it's not a change in policy) is going to eliminate two resources that Bay Area skiers tend to use. Neither seems like something that Twitter wants to shut off, but neither can continue to operate with the current de-duplication filters: @i80chains. That rebroadcasts Caltrans's announcements for Interstate 80 in the Sierra Nevadas. During the winter, it lets people know when chains are required to drive over Donner Pass. When chain control is turned off, it tweets OPEN: NO RESTRICTIONS (or something to that effect). That all clear tweet is getting caught by the filters, which leaves out-of-date information on the stream/feed. It is as important to receive a tweet that says you don't need chains as it is to receive one that says you'll need them from Kingvale to Truckee, but as of right now, only one is allowed to get through. @tahoe_weather. Rebroadcasts National Weather Service warnings/ watches and announcements relevant to people in Tahoe. It also has a No active advisory tweet that it sends out when there are no longer any active weather statements. Again, these all clear tweets are getting filtered, which rather drastically reduces the usefulness of the bot. 2. In the Spam section of that policy we also clearly state that the rules will be changing as we adapt to new tactics I understand that it's impossible to really define spam and/or abuse, and that anything that's ultimately an announcement-bot is going to be walking a fine line. But those two bots above seem like they're not remotely abusive, do seem like they're useful, and they're getting swept up among the spammers.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Can I suggest: A RepeatTweet API. Permit the delivery of marked duplicate tweets on the Twitter side, with an API to allow external apps/services to integrate it. The system could permit (and only permit) RepeatTweets with a DuplicateOf tag indicating the duplicated tweet, sent through the API. This would allow Search to filter out duplicates, and other apps could filter out duplicates that the user has already seen/marked as read. This would also allow external apps/services to provide the scheduling. RepeatTweets could be rate-limited (say 5 per 24h per account) to reduce spam. This would facilitate most of the usage cases I've read in this thread -- except emergency services, where duplicated tweets shouldn't be filtered out because the duplicate text refers to a new/changed condition. Perhaps a whitelist of such emergency services should be exempted from the exiting duplicate filters. Regards, Sean Lindsay On Oct 16, 5:01 pm, John Kalucki jkalu...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know about paygrade, but more than a few Twitter employees follow i80chains during the season. We hear you. I just don't know what to suggest be done about the situation.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Simple solution, have the robot tweet the time and date along with the 'advisory message'. This would be enough to get around twitters filters Cheers, Dean -Original Message- From: twitter-development-talk@googlegroups.com [mailto:twitter-development-t...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sean Lindsay Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 3:40 AM To: Twitter Development Talk Subject: [twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets Can I suggest: A RepeatTweet API. Permit the delivery of marked duplicate tweets on the Twitter side, with an API to allow external apps/services to integrate it. The system could permit (and only permit) RepeatTweets with a DuplicateOf tag indicating the duplicated tweet, sent through the API. This would allow Search to filter out duplicates, and other apps could filter out duplicates that the user has already seen/marked as read. This would also allow external apps/services to provide the scheduling. RepeatTweets could be rate-limited (say 5 per 24h per account) to reduce spam. This would facilitate most of the usage cases I've read in this thread -- except emergency services, where duplicated tweets shouldn't be filtered out because the duplicate text refers to a new/changed condition. Perhaps a whitelist of such emergency services should be exempted from the exiting duplicate filters. Regards, Sean Lindsay On Oct 16, 5:01 pm, John Kalucki jkalu...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know about paygrade, but more than a few Twitter employees follow i80chains during the season. We hear you. I just don't know what to suggest be done about the situation.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
One thing to do is include the date/time that no chains are required. In general, status messages should be timestamped because it's almost always important to know when they were generated. Yes, tweets are timestamped, but that's the tweet's timestamp, not the date that the status was actually generated by the service. (Yes, the two will be reasonably close when things are going well, but ) On Oct 15, 11:01 pm, John Kalucki jkalu...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know about paygrade, but more than a few Twitter employees follow i80chains during the season. We hear you. I just don't know what to suggest be done about the situation. On Oct 15, 11:09 am, Toxic phoneybolo...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com wrote: 1. Duplicate tweets HAS always been considered a violation. Sure, it's always been a reason to kick someone off, but by attempting to automatically police it, you've managed to take out a couple of quite legitimate services, some of which were using twitter in new and interesting ways. But for those collecting examples of collateral damage, I've got another one for you. Perhaps someone above the approptiate pay grade at Twitter is a skier/rider? Because this change in behavior (even if it's not a change in policy) is going to eliminate two resources that Bay Area skiers tend to use. Neither seems like something that Twitter wants to shut off, but neither can continue to operate with the current de-duplication filters: @i80chains. That rebroadcasts Caltrans's announcements for Interstate 80 in the Sierra Nevadas. During the winter, it lets people know when chains are required to drive over Donner Pass. When chain control is turned off, it tweets OPEN: NO RESTRICTIONS (or something to that effect). That all clear tweet is getting caught by the filters, which leaves out-of-date information on the stream/feed. It is as important to receive a tweet that says you don't need chains as it is to receive one that says you'll need them from Kingvale to Truckee, but as of right now, only one is allowed to get through. @tahoe_weather. Rebroadcasts National Weather Service warnings/ watches and announcements relevant to people in Tahoe. It also has a No active advisory tweet that it sends out when there are no longer any active weather statements. Again, these all clear tweets are getting filtered, which rather drastically reduces the usefulness of the bot. 2. In the Spam section of that policy we also clearly state that the rules will be changing as we adapt to new tactics I understand that it's impossible to really define spam and/or abuse, and that anything that's ultimately an announcement-bot is going to be walking a fine line. But those two bots above seem like they're not remotely abusive, do seem like they're useful, and they're getting swept up among the spammers.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I appreciate the healthy debate here over the issue, and we all read the threads in this forum, but the reality is we don't have the time to respond to every inquiry. Chad has done a great job in making sure explicit questions get answered and we are happy to have an open discussion about the topic. Let me try to answer the myriad of topics that have been raised here: 1. Duplicate tweets HAS always been considered a violation. If you haven't read The Twitter Rules (clearly linked to from the Terms), you should read them now: http://help.twitter.com/forums/26257/entries/18311. It clearly states under *Spam* that the definition will include ... post duplicate content over multiple accounts or multiple duplicate updates on one account 2. In the Spam section of that policy we also clearly state that the rules will be changing as we adapt to new tactics. It's an arms race and we need the ability to react to new issues to protect the experience for all users and developers. And counter to Dewalds point, releasing exact numbers for spammers to circumvent creates MORE of an issue, not less. If you are dancing around the edges of those numbers, you are likely supporting functionality that questionable. 3. Spam is bad. For everyone. We will not only enforce the letter of that document but the spirit of that document. If your app enables spam, be prepared to get an email from us. We will help you identify the features that are facilitating spammy behavior and work with you to rectify it. 4. We are open with our policies and communication. If you have questions about your app, please email us for clarification. We are happy to talk to you about it. Best, Ryan On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I've previously asked for guidelines on what our responsibilities are in terms of self-policing. No answer. Add to that the clear and unambiguous definition of things. Yeah sure, Twitter cannot clearly define things because that will aid the spammers. Bullshit. It is their responsibility to define what exactly is acceptable to them. That will not assist the spammers. It will assist us to not inadvertently, through wrong interpretation or assumption, provide a platform that spammers can leverage. Up until the first email I received from Twitter on October 8th, I was monitoring the level of duplicate tweet rejection that the API was giving, and I consequently concluded that the users of my service was not producing a large amount of duplicate tweets. Seems like their internal definition of duplicate content is far wider than the interpretation of the Platform Team when they wrote the code to reject duplicate tweets. I still do not know exactly what is duplicate content and what is not. Do you? I guess not. Nobody knows. Dewald On Oct 13, 11:07 pm, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Chad: Sorry, I didn't see you had posted in here, and not sure if my subsequent posts properly answered you. I mean that Desktop apps, not being bound by a whitelisted IP, wouldn't be limited by restrictions limiting API access to OAUTH only. Namely, a desktop client could use a Mozilla user-agent, scrape Twitter.com, grab an authenticity_token, and then do a simple HTTP form submission with plaintext username/password. From there, the client could do whatever outlawed actions aren't possible from Web apps. While you could presumably find some commonalities with these logins for a time, probably the only effective way to counter this approach is to introduce login captchas. And that's an ugly barrier to entry for the average user. Restricting Web-based apps will presumably shift the policed behavior to such desktop apps, where it would probably morph into something even more destructive. As a web-based developer, I've previously asked for guidelines on what our responsibilities are in terms of self-policing. No answer. And it's really disheartening to hear that carte blanche limitations are now being imposed. There are obvious legitimate uses for recurring dynamic tweets (e.g., NBC announcing show schedules/guests, or fitness apps tweeting how many miles you ran). Blocking such behavior across the board seems incredibly short-sighted and limits further important business- oriented development in this area. PB On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Please explain this statement? -Chad Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver rsar...@twitter.com wrote: 1. Duplicate tweets HAS always been considered a violation. Sure, it's always been a reason to kick someone off, but by attempting to automatically police it, you've managed to take out a couple of quite legitimate services, some of which were using twitter in new and interesting ways. But for those collecting examples of collateral damage, I've got another one for you. Perhaps someone above the approptiate pay grade at Twitter is a skier/rider? Because this change in behavior (even if it's not a change in policy) is going to eliminate two resources that Bay Area skiers tend to use. Neither seems like something that Twitter wants to shut off, but neither can continue to operate with the current de-duplication filters: @i80chains. That rebroadcasts Caltrans's announcements for Interstate 80 in the Sierra Nevadas. During the winter, it lets people know when chains are required to drive over Donner Pass. When chain control is turned off, it tweets OPEN: NO RESTRICTIONS (or something to that effect). That all clear tweet is getting caught by the filters, which leaves out-of-date information on the stream/feed. It is as important to receive a tweet that says you don't need chains as it is to receive one that says you'll need them from Kingvale to Truckee, but as of right now, only one is allowed to get through. @tahoe_weather. Rebroadcasts National Weather Service warnings/ watches and announcements relevant to people in Tahoe. It also has a No active advisory tweet that it sends out when there are no longer any active weather statements. Again, these all clear tweets are getting filtered, which rather drastically reduces the usefulness of the bot. 2. In the Spam section of that policy we also clearly state that the rules will be changing as we adapt to new tactics I understand that it's impossible to really define spam and/or abuse, and that anything that's ultimately an announcement-bot is going to be walking a fine line. But those two bots above seem like they're not remotely abusive, do seem like they're useful, and they're getting swept up among the spammers.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Is Twitter crazy?! Have they even looked at their own user, market, and competitor information? Twitter has said they are actively pursuing businesses (and bloggers) and doing away with recurring tweets does away with key business value. Besides, there are technical solutions to this problem, so why implement a blanket policy that will negatively impact Twitter and its users. I just blogged my reasons, based on data, for why this is such a BAD idea. Dear Twitter, please don't kill your market http://bit.ly/1N5AHA On Oct 13, 1:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:29, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of argument, let's take this at face value as true. How about the search pollution issue with recurrent tweets in general? You may have a point. But it comes down to uneven enforcement. Twitter smacks down an app because they allow an individual to recur, say, every Monday: Today is Monday and my office hours will be from 2:15-3:30pm. Meanwhile, you have apps which do things like this: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23fun140 Aren't those effectively recurring tweets? -- Internets. Serious business.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
What kept me up at night is wondering what is coming down the pike... who knows if feature X, Y, or Z in your new Twitter app might get a stop-work order from Twitter. That's really scary. On Oct 14, 11:13 am, Neicole neic...@trustneicole.com wrote: Is Twitter crazy?! Have they even looked at their own user, market, and competitor information? Twitter has said they are actively pursuing businesses (and bloggers) and doing away with recurring tweets does away with key business value. Besides, there are technical solutions to this problem, so why implement a blanket policy that will negatively impact Twitter and its users. I just blogged my reasons, based on data, for why this is such a BAD idea. Dear Twitter, please don't kill your markethttp://bit.ly/1N5AHA On Oct 13, 1:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:29, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of argument, let's take this at face value as true. How about the search pollution issue with recurrent tweets in general? You may have a point. But it comes down to uneven enforcement. Twitter smacks down an app because they allow an individual to recur, say, every Monday: Today is Monday and my office hours will be from 2:15-3:30pm. Meanwhile, you have apps which do things like this: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23fun140 Aren't those effectively recurring tweets? -- Internets. Serious business.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I'm encouraged to know that someone from Twitter is reading the posts on this group. Perhaps this post will come to the attention of someone in Twitter who will start a discussion with their legal advisors. When I signed up for Twitter I read the TOS presented carefully (sorry, I used to be a practicing lawyer, so I really DO read the fine print before I sign). I got excited about the power of communicating with potentially large groups of people on Twitter, and decided I would try to get a million followers in a single month, using nothing but free tools. My plan was to create 1,000 accounts and get 1,000 followers on each account. My self-imposed limitation was that I could not follow the same person on more than one account. Prior to launching this admittedly crazy scheme, I re-read the TOS carefully. They contained no restriction about multiple accounts, no restriction about using the same identity on multiple accounts, and no restriction on trying to get followers by following others. To my great surprise, the accounts I began creating in preparation for this challenge started getting shut down. In the email sent by Twitter, reference was made to a TOS that appears on Twitter's Help page, BUT IS NOT THE SAME AS THE TOS DISPLAYED WHEN SIGNING UP FOR A TWITTER ACCOUNT. I carefully read the hidden TOS and began conforming to it to the best of my ability. Further shutdowns followed. It became apparent to me: 1) That Twitter wants to control how its service is used. I have no quarrel with Twitter here, as they are paying the freight -- I pay nothing to use their software, their bandwidth or their servers. 2) Twitter is either poorly organized or downright deceitful (I assume the former, not yet having irrefutable evidence to the contrary) in posting one version of their TOS when someone signs up for a Twitter account, but maintaining and enforcing a second version of the TOS. (NOTE: they have now changed the TOS shown during sign up to refer to the same rules showing on the Help page) 3) Twitter seems to want to shape the service as a tool for two-way conversations between individuals or small groups. There is a large market that sees value in using the service as a one-way broadcast medium. Despite the limits Twitter is trying to put in place to shape the service (the 2,000 follower limit, no duplicate tweets, etc. etc.) Twitter is simultaneously encouraging SOME users of Twitter to develop large followings, but automatically signing new twitter users up to follow certain users with large followings, if the user simply hits the big green NEXT button on each screen of the sign-up process. 4) Twitter does not place a high value on making sure that the rules for using their service are clear and understandable and are consistently applied to all users. I respectfully submit that Twitter needs to provide common ground rules applicable to all users. To actively work to restrict some users from using the service as a broadcast medium, while at the same time actively encouraging the use of the service as a broadcast medium by other users (do you think anyone on twitter is having a two-way conversation with 2,000,000 people?? of course not) is fundamentally unfair. Is it in fact an illegal restraint of trade? Could Twitter end up on the wrong end of a class action lawsuit that bankrupts it or shuts it down before it even begins to monetize its service? I don't know -- that is not my area of expertise. What I DO know, is that my enthusiasm for using twitter for any purpose has waned considerably since it became apparent that I cannot predict with any certainty what their rules will be a week from now, let alone a year from now. If enough other business owners feel like I do, I think Twitter stands to severely limit its monetization possibilities.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
They can still check for duplicate tweets, and can still suspend accounts violating the TOS, regardless of client. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:23, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are against Twitter TOS. You can read what Twitter wrote to me here: http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/ -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
The Twitter API already rejects duplicate tweets. It appears that not everyone in Twitter is aware of this fact. Ryan, can you please communicate that to your fellow Twitter employees? Dewald On Oct 13, 2:23 am, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are against Twitter TOS. You can read what Twitter wrote to me here: http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Isn't it the case they reject duplicate Tweets if you try to post the same thing twice consecutively? I've not seen them reject duplicate Tweets if there is intervening posts. Personally I think this is a really bad move on Twitter's part. Because of the streaming model of Twitter itself and the fact that not every follower will see every Tweet that you do, not being able to do recurring Tweets leaves businesses without the ability to economically get a consistent message out onto their account. It also looks like a very anti-competitive move to all the ad stream businesses out there. Certainly there are some ad companies that have abused recurring Tweets, but without the ability to do recurring Tweets, the motivation for many businesses to maintain a presence on Twitter just dropped because there's no better way to capitalize on the labor and expense of building and maintaining a following. So much about promotion of business has to do with consistent message and creating brand presence with that consistent message. Is Twitter carving out space now to do their own in-stream ad busines? Are businesses shut out that want to promote themselves on their own account without having to assign a person with a paycheck to get a simple and repetitive task done? A short sighted move it seems to me. If Twitter doesn't want businesses on their service then they're going in the right direction.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Isn't it the case they reject duplicate Tweets if you try to post the same thing twice consecutively? I've not seen them reject duplicate Tweets if there is intervening posts. Correct. Personally I think this is a really bad move on Twitter's part. Because of the streaming model of Twitter itself and the fact that not every follower will see every Tweet that you do, not being able to do recurring Tweets leaves businesses without the ability to economically get a consistent message out onto their account. I think this is a valid point, but what would you do with accounts that do recurrent @s? You don't have to follow them for them to show up in your mentions, and that means a never ending stream of blocks. Moreover, those kinds of recurrent tweets also show up (all other things being equal) in Twitter Search, contaminating those results. -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- She loves ya! ... now what? -- True Lies -
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I see @ mention abusers as a different breed because for the most part their Tweets are not technically duplicates. They are complete pollution for sure and harder for an individual user to stop preemptively. At least if someone is annoyed with recurring or duplicate tweets they can simply unfollow that account and there's a self regulating mechanism. Ultimately the real pollution issue is the @ mention system itself, not recurring Tweets on individual accounts. If Twitter wants to clean up the pollution, as they put in their message to Dewald, they would have a lot easier time rooting out @ mention spammers than trying to figure out some pattern of recurring Tweets looking back into history. You can usually determine an @mention spammer by looking at the first 5-10 Tweets and simply counting the @ symbols. The DM system is already polluted beyond hope. @ mentions are right on the heels of being useless to businesses trying to track the brand. In the grand scheme of Twitter problems, it seems to me that recurring Tweets are way down on the list and I think they're pulling a real tool out of the grasp of many businesses, enough that I don't know whether I can honestly suggest a business spend time on Twitter.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Twitter is being incredibly stupid, rash, and short-sighted about this. Does ATT write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook. We therefore demand you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product. Of course not! That Twitter is now focusing on regulating Twitter APPS shows that it has a weak and ineffective user regulation system in place. It can't effectively police its users, so it decides to go after apps that they (may) use. Cheap shot. It's like stopping drunk driving by banning all driving after dark. Do they really think that that is going to work? Sure, they can probably slam down Web-based clients that use dedicated, whitelisted IP addresses. But as I pointed out earlier, this will just shift the behavior, and make it even more nettlesome. Now it will move to desktop clients that they cannot stop (yes, they can still ban individual members for duplicate content, but they cannot stop the sale and use of the desktop client). Months ago I emailed Twitter asking them what OUR responsibilities were as app developers. I think all of us understand and recognize that many of our apps have features that could be abused. I think many of us are perfectly willing to police our own apps, and work with Twitter to help reign in behavior that isn't acceptable. But it seems out-of-bounds for Twitter to bypass such a cooperative system, and instead just carte blanche ban a particular app feature that has many legitimate uses. On Oct 13, 6:32 am, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They can still check for duplicate tweets, and can still suspend accounts violating the TOS, regardless of client. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:23, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are against Twitter TOS. You can read what Twitter wrote to me here: http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/ -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
If the desktop client uses OAuth (which, if and when they deprecate basic auth, will be all), you bet your ass they can regulate desktop clients. All they have to do is ban any tweets using the Consumer Secret and Key for that app (and any subsequent keys said jackass developer attempts to get after previous tokens have been banned). Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:54, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Twitter is being incredibly stupid, rash, and short-sighted about this. Does ATT write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook. We therefore demand you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product. Of course not! That Twitter is now focusing on regulating Twitter APPS shows that it has a weak and ineffective user regulation system in place. It can't effectively police its users, so it decides to go after apps that they (may) use. Cheap shot. It's like stopping drunk driving by banning all driving after dark. Do they really think that that is going to work? Sure, they can probably slam down Web-based clients that use dedicated, whitelisted IP addresses. But as I pointed out earlier, this will just shift the behavior, and make it even more nettlesome. Now it will move to desktop clients that they cannot stop (yes, they can still ban individual members for duplicate content, but they cannot stop the sale and use of the desktop client). Months ago I emailed Twitter asking them what OUR responsibilities were as app developers. I think all of us understand and recognize that many of our apps have features that could be abused. I think many of us are perfectly willing to police our own apps, and work with Twitter to help reign in behavior that isn't acceptable. But it seems out-of-bounds for Twitter to bypass such a cooperative system, and instead just carte blanche ban a particular app feature that has many legitimate uses. On Oct 13, 6:32 am, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They can still check for duplicate tweets, and can still suspend accounts violating the TOS, regardless of client. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:23, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are against Twitter TOS. You can read what Twitter wrote to me here: http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/ -- Internets. Serious business. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS Hang on a second. Please point me to the Twitter Rules where it clearly said that a recurring tweet is in violation of the TOS. Even though my app provided users with the ability to have recurring tweets that would not result in what my understanding and interpretation was at that time of the meaning of the very vague term duplicate content, they ruled recurring tweets as off-limits this Monday in a communication to me. And in a very patient attempt to be a good Twitter application developer, I complied and am deactivating that feature. NOW THAT I KNOW. Dewald On Oct 13, 4:16 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: If the desktop client uses OAuth (which, if and when they deprecate basic auth, will be all), you bet your ass they can regulate desktop clients. All they have to do is ban any tweets using the Consumer Secret and Key for that app (and any subsequent keys said jackass developer attempts to get after previous tokens have been banned). Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:54, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Twitter is being incredibly stupid, rash, and short-sighted about this. Does ATT write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook. We therefore demand you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product. Of course not! That Twitter is now focusing on regulating Twitter APPS shows that it has a weak and ineffective user regulation system in place. It can't effectively police its users, so it decides to go after apps that they (may) use. Cheap shot. It's like stopping drunk driving by banning all driving after dark. Do they really think that that is going to work? Sure, they can probably slam down Web-based clients that use dedicated, whitelisted IP addresses. But as I pointed out earlier, this will just shift the behavior, and make it even more nettlesome. Now it will move to desktop clients that they cannot stop (yes, they can still ban individual members for duplicate content, but they cannot stop the sale and use of the desktop client). Months ago I emailed Twitter asking them what OUR responsibilities were as app developers. I think all of us understand and recognize that many of our apps have features that could be abused. I think many of us are perfectly willing to police our own apps, and work with Twitter to help reign in behavior that isn't acceptable. But it seems out-of-bounds for Twitter to bypass such a cooperative system, and instead just carte blanche ban a particular app feature that has many legitimate uses. On Oct 13, 6:32 am, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They can still check for duplicate tweets, and can still suspend accounts violating the TOS, regardless of client. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:23, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are against Twitter TOS. You can read what Twitter wrote to me here: http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/ -- Internets. Serious business. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
If the desktop client uses OAuth (which, if and when they deprecate basic auth, will be all), you bet your ass they can regulate desktop clients. All they have to do is ban any tweets using the Consumer Secret and Key for that app (and any subsequent keys said jackass developer attempts to get after previous tokens have been banned). Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? The bottom line is that this situation isn't as black and white as you think, and Twitter's approach is wrong-headed.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I'm not debating that there might have been some confusion. I wasn't implying that you were irresponsible or malicious when building your app, and I commend you for taking appropriate measures when contacted by Twitter. It's now precedent, though, that it is a violation of the TOS, regardless of how you read the document. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 13:29, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS Hang on a second. Please point me to the Twitter Rules where it clearly said that a recurring tweet is in violation of the TOS. Even though my app provided users with the ability to have recurring tweets that would not result in what my understanding and interpretation was at that time of the meaning of the very vague term duplicate content, they ruled recurring tweets as off-limits this Monday in a communication to me. And in a very patient attempt to be a good Twitter application developer, I complied and am deactivating that feature. NOW THAT I KNOW. Dewald On Oct 13, 4:16 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: If the desktop client uses OAuth (which, if and when they deprecate basic auth, will be all), you bet your ass they can regulate desktop clients. All they have to do is ban any tweets using the Consumer Secret and Key for that app (and any subsequent keys said jackass developer attempts to get after previous tokens have been banned). Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:54, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Twitter is being incredibly stupid, rash, and short-sighted about this. Does ATT write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook. We therefore demand you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product. Of course not! That Twitter is now focusing on regulating Twitter APPS shows that it has a weak and ineffective user regulation system in place. It can't effectively police its users, so it decides to go after apps that they (may) use. Cheap shot. It's like stopping drunk driving by banning all driving after dark. Do they really think that that is going to work? Sure, they can probably slam down Web-based clients that use dedicated, whitelisted IP addresses. But as I pointed out earlier, this will just shift the behavior, and make it even more nettlesome. Now it will move to desktop clients that they cannot stop (yes, they can still ban individual members for duplicate content, but they cannot stop the sale and use of the desktop client). Months ago I emailed Twitter asking them what OUR responsibilities were as app developers. I think all of us understand and recognize that many of our apps have features that could be abused. I think many of us are perfectly willing to police our own apps, and work with Twitter to help reign in behavior that isn't acceptable. But it seems out-of-bounds for Twitter to bypass such a cooperative system, and instead just carte blanche ban a particular app feature that has many legitimate uses. On Oct 13, 6:32 am, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They can still check for duplicate tweets, and can still suspend accounts violating the TOS, regardless of client. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:23, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are against Twitter TOS. You can read what Twitter wrote to me here: http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/ -- Internets. Serious business. -- Internets. Serious business. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Please explain this statement? -Chad Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? The bottom line is that this situation isn't as black and white as you think, and Twitter's approach is wrong-headed.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. When are you going to turn off Basic Auth? We would like to deprecate Basic Auth at some point to prevent security issues but no date has been set for that. We will not set a date for deprecation until several outstanding issues have been resolved. When we do set a date we plan to provide at least six months to transition. Can my application continue to use Basic Auth? There is no requirement to move to OAuth at this time. If/When a date is set for the deprecation of Basic Auth we will publish a notice on the API Development Talk. We will not set a date for deprecation until several outstanding issues have been resolved. When we do set a date we plan to provide at least six months to transition. Explain to me where it's obvious that basic auth will ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients. Furthermore, please explain to me what voodoo you employed while reading those statements to come to your conclusion. I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? Why on earth would people do that? Why on earth would you want to tweet the exact same text once an hour for 100 consecutive hours. What benefit could that POSSIBLY provide to the Twitter ecosystem? The bottom line is that this situation isn't as black and white as you think, and Twitter's approach is wrong-headed. I disagree. I think it's pretty black and white. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
On Oct 13, 12:48 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Explain to me where it's obvious that basic auth will ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients. Furthermore, please explain to me what voodoo you employed while reading those statements to come to your conclusion. You clearly do not understand the basics of HTTP. Do you think that Twitter is going to somehow deny Firefox, IE, and other desktop clients from connecting to Twitter with a simple username and password only? I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? Why on earth would people do that? Why on earth would you want to tweet the exact same text once an hour for 100 consecutive hours. What benefit could that POSSIBLY provide to the Twitter ecosystem? I am beginning to realize it is of no use arguing with you. Obviously there is no benefit. That's the point: that both the app in question AND those apps provide means for violating Twitter's Terms of Service.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Wrong. _Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Explain to me where it's obvious that basic auth will ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients. Furthermore, please explain to me what voodoo you employed while reading those statements to come to your conclusion. You clearly do not understand the basics of HTTP. Do you think that Twitter is going to somehow deny Firefox, IE, and other desktop clients from connecting to Twitter with a simple username and password only? In fairness, you can still disallow Basic Auth and allow other forms of password-based authentication. Twitter requiring a password does not necessarily mandate that Basic Auth be the method of presenting said authentication credentials. This coming from someone who likes Chad's idea rather than a pure OAuth universe. -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. -- Beethoven ---
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
You clearly do not understand the basics of HTTP. Do you think that Twitter is going to somehow deny Firefox, IE, and other desktop clients from connecting to Twitter with a simple username and password only? Since when do Firefox and IE use the API to communicate with Twitter? Last time I checked, they don't...but maybe I am just missing something. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:53 PM, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 13, 12:48 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Explain to me where it's obvious that basic auth will ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients. Furthermore, please explain to me what voodoo you employed while reading those statements to come to your conclusion. You clearly do not understand the basics of HTTP. Do you think that Twitter is going to somehow deny Firefox, IE, and other desktop clients from connecting to Twitter with a simple username and password only? I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? Why on earth would people do that? Why on earth would you want to tweet the exact same text once an hour for 100 consecutive hours. What benefit could that POSSIBLY provide to the Twitter ecosystem? I am beginning to realize it is of no use arguing with you. Obviously there is no benefit. That's the point: that both the app in question AND those apps provide means for violating Twitter's Terms of Service.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 13:54, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Does ATT write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook. We therefore demand you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product. Of course not! Nope. They send letters to the FCC because Google Voice is filling up their small tubes. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/att-accused-of-regulatory-capitalism-as-fcc-probes-google-voice.ars -- Abraham Williams | Community Evangelist | http://web608.org Hacker | http://abrah.am | http://twitter.com/abraham http://web608.org/geeks/abraham/blogs/2009/10/03/win-google-wave-invite This email is: [ ] blogable [x] ask first [ ] private.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
There appears to be a lack of understanding on the part of Twitter of the following: When you create a vacuum, something will fill that vacuum. Instead of working with me and opting for a solution I offered to them that would have ensured that recurring tweets never result in duplicate content from my system, they opted to rather outright ban recurring tweets. Okay fine, so now I don't offer that feature. That creates a vacuum. A whole host of less scrupulous developers are waiting to fill that vacuum with solutions that will be harder or impossible for Twitter to detect, creating an even bigger problem for Twitter than they had before. The fact that this approach of them is hurting my business is not very encouraging to write another Twitter-related line of code. Dewald On Oct 13, 4:45 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not debating that there might have been some confusion. I wasn't implying that you were irresponsible or malicious when building your app, and I commend you for taking appropriate measures when contacted by Twitter. It's now precedent, though, that it is a violation of the TOS, regardless of how you read the document. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 13:29, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS Hang on a second. Please point me to the Twitter Rules where it clearly said that a recurring tweet is in violation of the TOS. Even though my app provided users with the ability to have recurring tweets that would not result in what my understanding and interpretation was at that time of the meaning of the very vague term duplicate content, they ruled recurring tweets as off-limits this Monday in a communication to me. And in a very patient attempt to be a good Twitter application developer, I complied and am deactivating that feature. NOW THAT I KNOW. Dewald On Oct 13, 4:16 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: If the desktop client uses OAuth (which, if and when they deprecate basic auth, will be all), you bet your ass they can regulate desktop clients. All they have to do is ban any tweets using the Consumer Secret and Key for that app (and any subsequent keys said jackass developer attempts to get after previous tokens have been banned). Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:54, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Twitter is being incredibly stupid, rash, and short-sighted about this. Does ATT write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook. We therefore demand you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product. Of course not! That Twitter is now focusing on regulating Twitter APPS shows that it has a weak and ineffective user regulation system in place. It can't effectively police its users, so it decides to go after apps that they (may) use. Cheap shot. It's like stopping drunk driving by banning all driving after dark. Do they really think that that is going to work? Sure, they can probably slam down Web-based clients that use dedicated, whitelisted IP addresses. But as I pointed out earlier, this will just shift the behavior, and make it even more nettlesome. Now it will move to desktop clients that they cannot stop (yes, they can still ban individual members for duplicate content, but they cannot stop the sale and use of the desktop client). Months ago I emailed Twitter asking them what OUR responsibilities were as app developers. I think all of us understand and recognize that many of our apps have features that could be abused. I think many of us are perfectly willing to police our own apps, and work with Twitter to help reign in behavior that isn't acceptable. But it seems out-of-bounds for Twitter to bypass such a cooperative system, and instead just carte blanche ban a particular app feature that has many legitimate uses. On Oct 13, 6:32 am, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They can still check for duplicate tweets, and can still suspend accounts violating the TOS, regardless of client. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:23, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote:
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I see @ mention abusers as a different breed because for the most part their Tweets are not technically duplicates. They are complete pollution for sure and harder for an individual user to stop preemptively. At least if someone is annoyed with recurring or duplicate tweets they can simply unfollow that account and there's a self regulating mechanism. Ultimately the real pollution issue is the @ mention system itself, not recurring Tweets on individual accounts. For the sake of argument, let's take this at face value as true. How about the search pollution issue with recurrent tweets in general? -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- When people get acupuncture, do voodoo dolls die? --
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Does ATT write to Microsoft and say, hey, our network is getting a lot of junk email sent through Microsoft Outlook. We therefore demand you get rid of the CC and BCC features of that product. Of course not! Nope. They send letters to the FCC because Google Voice is filling up their small tubes. That's easily solved, just get some trucks. -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- A zebra cannot change its spots. -- Al Gore
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
You clearly do not understand the basics of HTTP. Do you think that Twitter is going to somehow deny Firefox, IE, and other desktop clients from connecting to Twitter with a simple username and password only? Since when do Firefox and IE use the API to communicate with Twitter? Last time I checked, they don't...but maybe I am just missing something. My point is that desktop apps can perform Twitter actions without going through the API. Any crackdown on particular behaviors of Web-based Twitter apps will likely see that behavior shift to desktop apps, as they are exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to centrally restrict.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
My point is that Basic Auth will be going away with the API. If an application is not using the API, then it's developers don't have to worry about Basic Auth going away because it won't concern them. OAuth is for API authorization, not website authorization. Ryan On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:11 PM, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: You clearly do not understand the basics of HTTP. Do you think that Twitter is going to somehow deny Firefox, IE, and other desktop clients from connecting to Twitter with a simple username and password only? Since when do Firefox and IE use the API to communicate with Twitter? Last time I checked, they don't...but maybe I am just missing something. My point is that desktop apps can perform Twitter actions without going through the API. Any crackdown on particular behaviors of Web-based Twitter apps will likely see that behavior shift to desktop apps, as they are exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to centrally restrict.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
For the sake of argument, let's take this at face value as true. How about the search pollution issue with recurrent tweets in general? You may have a point. But it comes down to uneven enforcement. Twitter smacks down an app because they allow an individual to recur, say, every Monday: Today is Monday and my office hours will be from 2:15-3:30pm. Meanwhile, you have apps which do things like this: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23fun140 Aren't those effectively recurring tweets?
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:29, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of argument, let's take this at face value as true. How about the search pollution issue with recurrent tweets in general? You may have a point. But it comes down to uneven enforcement. Twitter smacks down an app because they allow an individual to recur, say, every Monday: Today is Monday and my office hours will be from 2:15-3:30pm. Meanwhile, you have apps which do things like this: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23fun140 Aren't those effectively recurring tweets? -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
For the sake of argument, let's take this at face value as true. How about the search pollution issue with recurrent tweets in general? You may have a point. But it comes down to uneven enforcement. Twitter smacks down an app because they allow an individual to recur, say, every Monday: Today is Monday and my office hours will be from 2:15-3:30pm. Meanwhile, you have apps which do things like this: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23fun140 Aren't those effectively recurring tweets? I agree, and actually I have a filter rule for something very similar. But we're moving from definition of TOS to enforcement of same. -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- You can't have everything. Where would you put it? -- Steven Wright
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. It was civil and, hopefully, productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by rearranging deck chairs? Dewald On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn justyn.how...@gmail.com wrote: If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. -- Internets. Serious business. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting something awful like recurring tweets). The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are people in Twitter who actually view me as one of the good guys. With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter, I could have contained the matter programmatically. But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Dewald On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. It was civil and, hopefully, productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by rearranging deck chairs? Dewald On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn justyn.how...@gmail.com wrote: If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. -- Internets. Serious business. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Believe it or not, I've been reading every post on this thread with great intent. I have been proxying major points to powers that be and started an internal discussion on the topic at hand. The resulting decisions and policies that may be made/enforced from these discussions is, how do you say, above my pay grade. We do listen to these threads as long as the discussion remains constructive, which this one has. -Chad On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting something awful like recurring tweets). The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are people in Twitter who actually view me as one of the good guys. With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter, I could have contained the matter programmatically. But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Dewald On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. It was civil and, hopefully, productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by rearranging deck chairs? Dewald On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn justyn.how...@gmail.com wrote: If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks. -- Internets. Serious business. -- Internets. Serious business.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Thank you Chad, that is comforting to know. Dewald On Oct 13, 10:28 pm, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: Believe it or not, I've been reading every post on this thread with great intent. I have been proxying major points to powers that be and started an internal discussion on the topic at hand. The resulting decisions and policies that may be made/enforced from these discussions is, how do you say, above my pay grade. We do listen to these threads as long as the discussion remains constructive, which this one has. -Chad On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting something awful like recurring tweets). The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are people in Twitter who actually view me as one of the good guys. With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter, I could have contained the matter programmatically. But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Dewald On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. It was civil and, hopefully, productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by rearranging deck chairs? Dewald On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn justyn.how...@gmail.com wrote: If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Thanks for the response Chad. Hoping we can find measures to curb abuse while still allowing responsible use of recurrence as a useful tool for publishers, businesses and their followers who benefit from the consistency/timeliness of the communications. On 10/13/09 8:28 PM, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: Believe it or not, I've been reading every post on this thread with great intent. I have been proxying major points to powers that be and started an internal discussion on the topic at hand. The resulting decisions and policies that may be made/enforced from these discussions is, how do you say, above my pay grade. We do listen to these threads as long as the discussion remains constructive, which this one has. -Chad On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting something awful like recurring tweets). The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are people in Twitter who actually view me as one of the good guys. With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter, I could have contained the matter programmatically. But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Dewald On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. It was civil and, hopefully, productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by rearranging deck chairs? Dewald On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn justyn.how...@gmail.com wrote: If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all those stupid twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some get through the cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that cops only pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through the cracks.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Chad, Perhaps it will behoove the powers that be to actually speak to some of us developers to discover the ways people are using Twitter. When decisions are made from the isolation of the glass bubble of the Twitter Head Office, without really knowing what the USERS want, stuff like this ensues. Dewald On Oct 13, 10:28 pm, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: Believe it or not, I've been reading every post on this thread with great intent. I have been proxying major points to powers that be and started an internal discussion on the topic at hand. The resulting decisions and policies that may be made/enforced from these discussions is, how do you say, above my pay grade. We do listen to these threads as long as the discussion remains constructive, which this one has. -Chad On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting something awful like recurring tweets). The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are people in Twitter who actually view me as one of the good guys. With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter, I could have contained the matter programmatically. But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Dewald On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. It was civil and, hopefully, productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by rearranging deck chairs? Dewald On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn justyn.how...@gmail.com wrote: If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make vehicles that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, should the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws and box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to murder other human beings? Dewald On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
With communication like that, we can together figure out ways to give the users what they want in a manner that does not put undue strain on your system. Pissing developers off is NOT the right way to do it. Dewald On Oct 13, 10:58 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Chad, Perhaps it will behoove the powers that be to actually speak to some of us developers to discover the ways people are using Twitter. When decisions are made from the isolation of the glass bubble of the Twitter Head Office, without really knowing what the USERS want, stuff like this ensues. Dewald On Oct 13, 10:28 pm, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: Believe it or not, I've been reading every post on this thread with great intent. I have been proxying major points to powers that be and started an internal discussion on the topic at hand. The resulting decisions and policies that may be made/enforced from these discussions is, how do you say, above my pay grade. We do listen to these threads as long as the discussion remains constructive, which this one has. -Chad On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting something awful like recurring tweets). The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are people in Twitter who actually view me as one of the good guys. With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter, I could have contained the matter programmatically. But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically disappeared. Dewald On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like this. It was civil and, hopefully, productive. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by rearranging deck chairs? Dewald On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn justyn.how...@gmail.com wrote: If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to being a feature? Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right? So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want businesses to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52 unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the laptop prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a message out to people who opted to follow them. What's the happy-medium here? On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG ghil...@gmail.com wrote: They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or maybe simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind the counter because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government requires a waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder people. Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no abusive intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to post duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern warning. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, Where is the user's responsibility in this? I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a tweet, that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to those rules. That was not good enough. So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Chad: Sorry, I didn't see you had posted in here, and not sure if my subsequent posts properly answered you. I mean that Desktop apps, not being bound by a whitelisted IP, wouldn't be limited by restrictions limiting API access to OAUTH only. Namely, a desktop client could use a Mozilla user-agent, scrape Twitter.com, grab an authenticity_token, and then do a simple HTTP form submission with plaintext username/password. From there, the client could do whatever outlawed actions aren't possible from Web apps. While you could presumably find some commonalities with these logins for a time, probably the only effective way to counter this approach is to introduce login captchas. And that's an ugly barrier to entry for the average user. Restricting Web-based apps will presumably shift the policed behavior to such desktop apps, where it would probably morph into something even more destructive. As a web-based developer, I've previously asked for guidelines on what our responsibilities are in terms of self-policing. No answer. And it's really disheartening to hear that carte blanche limitations are now being imposed. There are obvious legitimate uses for recurring dynamic tweets (e.g., NBC announcing show schedules/guests, or fitness apps tweeting how many miles you ran). Blocking such behavior across the board seems incredibly short-sighted and limits further important business- oriented development in this area. PB On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Please explain this statement? -Chad Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? The bottom line is that this situation isn't as black and white as you think, and Twitter's approach is wrong-headed.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I've previously asked for guidelines on what our responsibilities are in terms of self-policing. No answer. Add to that the clear and unambiguous definition of things. Yeah sure, Twitter cannot clearly define things because that will aid the spammers. Bullshit. It is their responsibility to define what exactly is acceptable to them. That will not assist the spammers. It will assist us to not inadvertently, through wrong interpretation or assumption, provide a platform that spammers can leverage. Up until the first email I received from Twitter on October 8th, I was monitoring the level of duplicate tweet rejection that the API was giving, and I consequently concluded that the users of my service was not producing a large amount of duplicate tweets. Seems like their internal definition of duplicate content is far wider than the interpretation of the Platform Team when they wrote the code to reject duplicate tweets. I still do not know exactly what is duplicate content and what is not. Do you? I guess not. Nobody knows. Dewald On Oct 13, 11:07 pm, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Chad: Sorry, I didn't see you had posted in here, and not sure if my subsequent posts properly answered you. I mean that Desktop apps, not being bound by a whitelisted IP, wouldn't be limited by restrictions limiting API access to OAUTH only. Namely, a desktop client could use a Mozilla user-agent, scrape Twitter.com, grab an authenticity_token, and then do a simple HTTP form submission with plaintext username/password. From there, the client could do whatever outlawed actions aren't possible from Web apps. While you could presumably find some commonalities with these logins for a time, probably the only effective way to counter this approach is to introduce login captchas. And that's an ugly barrier to entry for the average user. Restricting Web-based apps will presumably shift the policed behavior to such desktop apps, where it would probably morph into something even more destructive. As a web-based developer, I've previously asked for guidelines on what our responsibilities are in terms of self-policing. No answer. And it's really disheartening to hear that carte blanche limitations are now being imposed. There are obvious legitimate uses for recurring dynamic tweets (e.g., NBC announcing show schedules/guests, or fitness apps tweeting how many miles you ran). Blocking such behavior across the board seems incredibly short-sighted and limits further important business- oriented development in this area. PB On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Please explain this statement? -Chad Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? The bottom line is that this situation isn't as black and white as you think, and Twitter's approach is wrong-headed.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Chad, Could you provide Twitter's official stance on what exactly is being banned? If the ban is limited to recurring tweets, it would help to have a clear definition. Can I assume that this means that Twitter is no longer allowing a single user to publish the substantially same content to their stream more than once whether by automated or manual means? That the separation in time or number of tweets between occurences is not considered in the determination? Can I also assume that two tweets with substantially the same content on *different* user's streams (essentially retweets with or without RT) either manually or via application IS alllowed and is not a violation? A clarification would be very much appreciated in order to allow myself and other developers to plan new features accordingly. Thanks, Scott
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I use a service called localbunny that allows people to pull content on request, will this type of service be effected as well: Example: a user types @TwitterName keyword this returns 1- 5 tweets. Multiple people tweet that syntax per day and prior to a meeting 100's of people might make this same request. The returned results are always the same, but they are addressed to different people. To minimize the noise in the stream the service also users a listener (@BDNT) and a responder (@BDNT_AR). thoughts? On Oct 13, 8:46 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: I've previously asked for guidelines on what our responsibilities are in terms of self-policing. No answer. Add to that the clear and unambiguous definition of things. Yeah sure, Twitter cannot clearly define things because that will aid the spammers. Bullshit. It is their responsibility to define what exactly is acceptable to them. That will not assist the spammers. It will assist us to not inadvertently, through wrong interpretation or assumption, provide a platform that spammers can leverage. Up until the first email I received from Twitter on October 8th, I was monitoring the level of duplicate tweet rejection that the API was giving, and I consequently concluded that the users of my service was not producing a large amount of duplicate tweets. Seems like their internal definition of duplicate content is far wider than the interpretation of the Platform Team when they wrote the code to reject duplicate tweets. I still do not know exactly what is duplicate content and what is not. Do you? I guess not. Nobody knows. Dewald On Oct 13, 11:07 pm, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Chad: Sorry, I didn't see you had posted in here, and not sure if my subsequent posts properly answered you. I mean that Desktop apps, not being bound by a whitelisted IP, wouldn't be limited by restrictions limiting API access to OAUTH only. Namely, a desktop client could use a Mozilla user-agent, scrape Twitter.com, grab an authenticity_token, and then do a simple HTTP form submission with plaintext username/password. From there, the client could do whatever outlawed actions aren't possible from Web apps. While you could presumably find some commonalities with these logins for a time, probably the only effective way to counter this approach is to introduce login captchas. And that's an ugly barrier to entry for the average user. Restricting Web-based apps will presumably shift the policed behavior to such desktop apps, where it would probably morph into something even more destructive. As a web-based developer, I've previously asked for guidelines on what our responsibilities are in terms of self-policing. No answer. And it's really disheartening to hear that carte blanche limitations are now being imposed. There are obvious legitimate uses for recurring dynamic tweets (e.g., NBC announcing show schedules/guests, or fitness apps tweeting how many miles you ran). Blocking such behavior across the board seems incredibly short-sighted and limits further important business- oriented development in this area. PB On Oct 13, 12:47 pm, Chad Etzel c...@twitter.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, PJB pjbmancun...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Basic Authentication will obviously ALWAYS be an option for desktop clients, regardless of whether or not it is via API. Please explain this statement? -Chad Furthermore, the app in question explicitly offered the option of a recurring tweet which is a violation of the TOS. Regardless of whether or not that provides a useful service -- I'm not going to start debating that -- the fact of the matter is it *is* a violation of the TOS. Plain and simple. Why shouldn't they be allowed (as if we have a say what a private company does with their own resources) to ban an app that violates the TOS with one of their own options? I see, so then sites like mapmyrun and others that, for example, tweet Bob ran 10 miles today in 2 hours, Bob ran 12 miles today in 1 hour, and other templated text, are also in violation of the terms? Or what about hootsuite where I can queue up 100 tweets with the exact same text to fire off every hour, perhaps interspersed with a second tweet? The bottom line is that this situation isn't as black and white as you think, and Twitter's approach is wrong-headed.
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!? On Oct 12, 7:24 pm, Dewald Pretorius dpr...@gmail.com wrote: Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a recurring tweet feature in your app, please take note that they are against Twitter TOS. You can read what Twitter wrote to me here: http://www.socialoomphblog.com/recurring-tweets/
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Reviving old thread: Seeing duplicates again, and now have examples: http://twitter.com/ryanashleyscott/status/1485237579 http://twitter.com/ryanashleyscott/status/1485239348 same exact content, as far as i can tell, posted back-to-back by the user. ...apparently TweetGrid is scary :) -Chad On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Eric Blair eric.s.bl...@gmail.com wrote: That's what I was expecting to see. However, I have a user who's update made it to his timeline twice. I see that we sent the request twice, 5 seconds apart, because the first one didn't complete. The second request returned successful. The user's timeline is protected, but the messages are id 1440033342 and 1440033271. I log the ids of successful posts and, in my logs, I see the higher id (1440033342). --Eric On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Doug Williams wrote: If your application tries to update the status of the same account within a short period of time, Twitter will ignore the update. As the statuses/update method returns the status object, in the case where the message was ignored, the previously successful update (with the same) text will be returned. You can confirm this behavior yourself. Try to update an account's status with two requests back to back containing the same text: $ curl -u user:password -d status=test http://twitter.com/statuses/update.xml You will see that the first update is successful. The second request will then return the same status as the first update (verify by id). Doug Williams Twitter API Support http://twitter.com/dougw On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Eric Blair eric.s.bl...@gmail.com wrote: Just got a report from one of my users that a message he posted through our app made it through to his Twitter timeline twice. Looking at our server logs, I can see that when he posted, we got a timeout from Twitter and successfully tried to repost. My guess is that the timed-out post actually went through, as did our report. We don't want to be hitting Twitter with duplicate posts, which is why we're careful about when we retry. However, I've seen references to Twitter filtering out duplicates, so I was under the impression that Twitter would detect and reject the repost message in this case. [1] [1]: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/fdaf7454be8f9006/acc5323f664a?lnk=gstq=duplicate#acc5323f664a Am I understanding this correctly or should I be more concerned about duplicate posts making it through my retry code? --Eric
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
Yeah, I'm hearing this from my users again as well. Looks to happen with timeouts and retries, same as my first email. http://twitter.com/josephcolon/status/1484146426 http://twitter.com/josephcolon/status/1484146432 plus a few more, some for that user and some for others. I've increased my posting timeout in code, but I've also filed a bug, since I'd expect Twitter's duplicate detection code to catch these cases. http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/detail?id=440 --Eric On Apr 9, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Chad Etzel wrote: Reviving old thread: Seeing duplicates again, and now have examples: http://twitter.com/ryanashleyscott/status/1485237579 http://twitter.com/ryanashleyscott/status/1485239348 same exact content, as far as i can tell, posted back-to-back by the user. ...apparently TweetGrid is scary :) -Chad On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Eric Blair eric.s.bl...@gmail.com wrote: That's what I was expecting to see. However, I have a user who's update made it to his timeline twice. I see that we sent the request twice, 5 seconds apart, because the first one didn't complete. The second request returned successful. The user's timeline is protected, but the messages are id 1440033342 and 1440033271. I log the ids of successful posts and, in my logs, I see the higher id (1440033342). --Eric On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Doug Williams wrote: If your application tries to update the status of the same account within a short period of time, Twitter will ignore the update. As the statuses/update method returns the status object, in the case where the message was ignored, the previously successful update (with the same) text will be returned. You can confirm this behavior yourself. Try to update an account's status with two requests back to back containing the same text: $ curl -u user:password -d status=test http://twitter.com/statuses/update.xml You will see that the first update is successful. The second request will then return the same status as the first update (verify by id). Doug Williams Twitter API Support http://twitter.com/dougw On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Eric Blair eric.s.bl...@gmail.com wrote: Just got a report from one of my users that a message he posted through our app made it through to his Twitter timeline twice. Looking at our server logs, I can see that when he posted, we got a timeout from Twitter and successfully tried to repost. My guess is that the timed-out post actually went through, as did our report. We don't want to be hitting Twitter with duplicate posts, which is why we're careful about when we retry. However, I've seen references to Twitter filtering out duplicates, so I was under the impression that Twitter would detect and reject the repost message in this case. [1] [1]: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/fdaf7454be8f9006/acc5323f664a?lnk=gstq=duplicate#acc5323f664a Am I understanding this correctly or should I be more concerned about duplicate posts making it through my retry code? --Eric
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Chad Etzel jazzyc...@gmail.com wrote: Reviving old thread: Seeing duplicates again, and now have examples: http://twitter.com/ryanashleyscott/status/1485237579 http://twitter.com/ryanashleyscott/status/1485239348 same exact content, as far as i can tell, posted back-to-back by the user. I'll second this as an issue... I had an annoying such failure with TwURLed News recent, which taught me that it's all too easy to have code fail to properly recognize that a tweet was successful. With any sort of automation, the risk is there; aggregation can amplify it. This reminds me very much of the loop detection built into mailing list software to ensure that the list doesn't keep sending the same messages. I've been embarrassed by that one, too, long ago. Seems that this would fall under the general category of intercepting things that can go wrong when an API becomes popular and lots of code of, shall we say varying quality is deployed. Nick
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
If your application tries to update the status of the same account within a short period of time, Twitter will ignore the update. As the statuses/update method returns the status object, in the case where the message was ignored, the previously successful update (with the same) text will be returned. You can confirm this behavior yourself. Try to update an account's status with two requests back to back containing the same text: $ curl -u user:password -d status=test http://twitter.com/statuses/update.xml You will see that the first update is successful. The second request will then return the same status as the first update (verify by id). Doug Williams Twitter API Support http://twitter.com/dougw On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Eric Blair eric.s.bl...@gmail.com wrote: Just got a report from one of my users that a message he posted through our app made it through to his Twitter timeline twice. Looking at our server logs, I can see that when he posted, we got a timeout from Twitter and successfully tried to repost. My guess is that the timed-out post actually went through, as did our report. We don't want to be hitting Twitter with duplicate posts, which is why we're careful about when we retry. However, I've seen references to Twitter filtering out duplicates, so I was under the impression that Twitter would detect and reject the repost message in this case. [1] [1]: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/fdaf7454be8f9006/acc5323f664a?lnk=gstq=duplicate#acc5323f664a Am I understanding this correctly or should I be more concerned about duplicate posts making it through my retry code? --Eric
[twitter-dev] Re: Duplicate Tweets
That's what I was expecting to see. However, I have a user who's update made it to his timeline twice. I see that we sent the request twice, 5 seconds apart, because the first one didn't complete. The second request returned successful. The user's timeline is protected, but the messages are id 1440033342 and 1440033271. I log the ids of successful posts and, in my logs, I see the higher id (1440033342). --Eric On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Doug Williams wrote: If your application tries to update the status of the same account within a short period of time, Twitter will ignore the update. As the statuses/update method returns the status object, in the case where the message was ignored, the previously successful update (with the same) text will be returned. You can confirm this behavior yourself. Try to update an account's status with two requests back to back containing the same text: $ curl -u user:password -d status=test http://twitter.com/statuses/update.xml You will see that the first update is successful. The second request will then return the same status as the first update (verify by id). Doug Williams Twitter API Support http://twitter.com/dougw On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Eric Blair eric.s.bl...@gmail.com wrote: Just got a report from one of my users that a message he posted through our app made it through to his Twitter timeline twice. Looking at our server logs, I can see that when he posted, we got a timeout from Twitter and successfully tried to repost. My guess is that the timed-out post actually went through, as did our report. We don't want to be hitting Twitter with duplicate posts, which is why we're careful about when we retry. However, I've seen references to Twitter filtering out duplicates, so I was under the impression that Twitter would detect and reject the repost message in this case. [1] [1]: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/browse_thread/thread/fdaf7454be8f9006/acc5323f664a?lnk=gstq=duplicate#acc5323f664a Am I understanding this correctly or should I be more concerned about duplicate posts making it through my retry code? --Eric
