On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:38 PM, atebits <loren.brich...@gmail.com> 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 functionality), > 2. it allows developers to trust in_reply_to_status_id, paving the way > for some *really* fantastic stuff down the road. Agreed on both points. I like the possibilities for actual conversation threading (not yet realized in summize searches but you can see the potential) With the exception that m.twitter.com really needs to get a "reply" button that works properly. If people are too lazy, well... tough. Just like proper mail filtering/threading, if they can't be bothered to figure out how it works, they'll lose some of the advantages that the software can provide for them. If they are using outdated software, then all sorts of things may break, including favorites (broken in an earlier version of Twitterrific when the API changed). Again, tough. 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 feature which was clearly broken by indicating a relationship between two posts when there was none. Neither should they be held hostage to "Users are too lazy to do it the right way." 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. TjL
