Makes sense. I was assuming the same. Thanks people! John from Twitter said that spritzer is 1/3 of the gardenhose, which makes it 15%. So I guess statistical insignificance of spritzer is due to its low percentage. Any explanation directly from Twitter?
On May 26, 6:01 pm, stephane <stephane.philipa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sven, > > well I merely assumed that the easiest way for twitter to send a > subset of tweets on spitzer was to send them based on their ids > (autoincrement integer)... > watching at the stream, I noticed that "all" the ids where ending with > 000,001,002,003,004, 100,102, ... 900,901,... 904 > > I did not push the analysis further though > > On May 26, 3:24 am, Sven Svensson <twitterf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Stephane, > > > I used the following calculation to obtain a four percent estimate for > > the spritzer stream: > > tweets_seen_in_stream / (max_tweet_id_seen_in_stream - > > min_tweet_id_seen_in_stream) > > > Did you use the same methodology? > > > The four percent is probably a bit too low as I assume private tweets > > get tweet_id:s too, which makes the denominator a bit too large due to > > private tweets being included. > > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM, stephane > > > <stephane.philipa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > looking at the tweet ids it looks like the spitzer stream delivers 5 > > > tweets every hundreds > > > this would make it a 5% of the firehose > > > > am i correct? > > > > Stephane > > >http://www.twazzup.com
