[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-04-16 Thread tcdent
I'm adding my opinion to this thread after a little bit of back-and- forth with @simX and @KuraFire on Twitter the other day. 140 characters is just not enough to convey a complete argument. This change of functionality has turned a feature that was in a definite gray area, to black and white. Th

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-23 Thread Dossy Shiobara
It's a lovely flame going on, but hoping to increase the S2N ratio _just slightly_, I think summarizing what Twitter's behavior _should be_ will be helpful: 1) If a POSTed update has in_reply_to metadata included, always use that. 2) Else, if the update starts with @name, auto-populate the i

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-22 Thread simX
> So your argument of mouse vs keyboard use doesn't even convince ME, an > avid keyboard user. I like it how I'm supposed to be the one that's an "uninformed idiot", except for the fact that I actually use the Twitter website daily, and I can tell you that simply typing @name is faster than havin

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-05 Thread TjL
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:51 PM, simX wrote: >> And yes, if their twitter client makes "real" replies too hard, they >> should be updated to make it easier or they should fall into disuse. > > This is just arrogant.  This is completely false. Call it whatever you want. I call it my logical conclu

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-04 Thread simX
On 4 Mar, 14:25, TjL wrote: > There *should* be a way to start a "conversation chain" without > setting an in-reply-to being added where it doesn't belong. That's > where it makes sense that you would type in @NAME by hand. > > Twitter shouldn't be held hostage to "the way it used to be" for a >

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-04 Thread TjL
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:38 PM, atebits wrote: > 1. If a client is making users jump through hoops to reply to a > specific tweet, the client is doing it wrong. [snip] > The end of auto-linking was a fantastic change for two reasons: 1. it > keeps everything simple (no new settings or flags or

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-04 Thread atebits
I don't have much time to debate this, but two points: 1. If a client is making users jump through hoops to reply to a specific tweet, the client is doing it wrong. Twitter.com does an excellent job making it easy, as do the vast majority of iPhone clients. 2. Adding another setting to control

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-04 Thread simX
Back and forth with atebits over e-mail: >>I, personally, found the false positives much more acceptable than the >>current situation where you have to hunt for originating tweets for "false >>negatives". >Doing anything interesting like automatically crawling conversation >webs is flat out impo

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-03 Thread Cameron Kaiser
> One of my main concerns is with SMS. There is current *no* way for SMS users > to reply to a specific status. Actually, this also affects mobile web, since you can't mark a post to reply to on m.twitter.com either (unless you are using the standard interface, of course). -- --

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-03 Thread Abraham Williams
One of my main concerns is with SMS. There is current *no* way for SMS users to reply to a specific status. I recently submitted an issue to make the in_reply_to_status_id updatable so people could repair their broken threads if they wanted to. But it has been marked as wont fix. http://code.googl

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-03 Thread simX
Uh, Twitter doesn't *need* to read users' minds, it just needs to merge the two approaches together. Before, Twitter auto-linked everything, and manual replies were considered genuine replies even if they weren't. Now, it auto-links nothing, and manual replies aren't auto-linked even if they *ar

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-03 Thread simX
Most of them are coming either from Twitterrific or from "web", but that's probably just an artifact of those users whom I follow. Most of my friends on Twitter are those who do Mac and iPhone development, and are most likely using Twitterrific on their Macs. Incidentally, it was pointed out to

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-03 Thread atebits
> Requiring a user to go through a specific part of the > UI just to reply to a tweet is not acceptable. How else would you expect it to work? Twitter can't read users' minds.

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-03 Thread Chad Etzel
Just curious, of these replies that *should* be linked to a specific tweet, how many are coming "from web" and how many "from another application" ? -Chad On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:04 PM, simX wrote: > > When is this problem going to get fixed? 1.5 months after the > original API change, I am st

[twitter-dev] Re: "in reply to" metadata missing for manual replies

2009-03-03 Thread simX
When is this problem going to get fixed? 1.5 months after the original API change, I am still getting a significant portion of replies in my timeline that are supposed to be *to a specific tweet*, but are not because Twitter is no longer auto-linking manual @replies and people are lazy and don't