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.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/detail?id=309 Are there more false positives happening before the change or are there more correct links that are now not being applied? I would wager the first is correct. I find it nice that now they are almost always correct. On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 19:04, simX <simsimb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 *are* genuine replies. > > So Twitter can auto-link manual replies that aren't specifically > marked as such (e.g.: by clicking the reply swoosh in the web > interface), and store that data *separately* from genuine replies that > are specifically marked as replies. That is, the "in_reply_to" data > can have a flag letting the client know if the data was auto-linked or > if it was not. Then, clients can decide what to do with that extra > data. > > For example, there could be a setting in the Twitter web interface to > show "in reply to" links for manual replies *and* genuine replies, or > to show "in reply to" links only for genuine replies. That way it can > satisfy me (and the other users that feel the same way), as well as > those that only want the most accurate links between conversations. > > I (and some of my followers) think that more context is better than no > context at all, even if the context is only approximate. Others think > that only accurate context is valuable, and approximate context isn't > at all. Such a change would preserve *more* metadata and would allow > *both* kinds of users to use Twitter how they want to. > > -- Simone > - Show quoted text - > > On 3 Mar, 16:24, atebits <loren.brich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > -- Abraham Williams | http://the.hackerconundrum.com Web608 | Community Evangelist | http://web608.org This email is: [ ] blogable [x] ask first [ ] private.
