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 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 t
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
groups.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/s
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
tag indicating the duplicated tweet, sent through the
API. This would
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 h
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 wrote:
> On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver wrote:
>
> > 1. Duplicate tweets HAS always bee
On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver 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 tw
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
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 pr
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 wrote:
> Is Twitter crazy?! Have they even looked at their own user, market,
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
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 sam
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 the
"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
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-a
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 wrote:
> Chad,
>
> Perhaps it will behoov
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 ensue
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" wrote:
Thank you Chad, that is comforting to know.
Dewald
On Oct 13, 10:28 pm, Chad Etzel 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 re
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,
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 recu
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 wrote:
>
> I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have
> any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ou
SocialOomph.com
On Oct 13, 8:45 pm, Justyn wrote:
> By the way - what was the "offending" app?
>
> On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, Dewald Pretorius 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
> > rearrangi
By the way - what was the "offending" app?
On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, Dewald Pretorius 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 wrote:
A weigh-in from Twitter would certainly be appreciated.
On Oct 13, 6:39 pm, Dewald Pretorius 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, J
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 wrote:
> If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way to
> being a feature?
>
> Abus
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
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.
> > 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
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 analog
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.
O
> 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: "T
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 P
> > 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 Twitt
> > Does AT&T 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
> 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 si
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 f
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 13:54, PJB wrote:
> Does AT&T 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 FC
> 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
> > > 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
On Oct 13, 12:48 pm, JDG 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 expla
>
> 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 w
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM, PJB 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
>> recu
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
ho
> 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 t
"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 recu
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 afte
Twitter is being incredibly stupid, rash, and short-sighted about
this.
Does AT&T 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
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 unfol
> 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 Tw
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
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 wrote:
> I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift
>
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 wrote:
>
>
> I worried about this. Doesn't Twitter realize this will just shift
> things to desktop apps which they have less control over?!?
>
>
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 wrote:
> Any developer who has included and/or is thinking about including a
> recurring tweet feature in your app, please take not
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:01 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
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
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
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
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 returne
59 matches
Mail list logo
