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 <phoneybolo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver <rsar...@twitter.com> 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 twitter in new and > interesting ways. > > But for those collecting examples of collateral damage, I've got > another one for you. Perhaps someone "above the approptiate pay > grade" at Twitter is a skier/rider? Because this change in behavior > (even if it's not a change in policy) is going to eliminate two > resources that Bay Area skiers tend to use. Neither seems like > something that Twitter wants to shut off, but neither can continue to > operate with the current de-duplication filters: > > @i80chains. That rebroadcasts Caltrans's announcements for Interstate > 80 in the Sierra Nevadas. During the winter, it lets people know when > chains are required to drive over Donner Pass. When chain control is > turned off, it tweets "OPEN: NO RESTRICTIONS" (or something to that > effect). That "all clear" tweet is getting caught by the filters, > which leaves out-of-date information on the stream/feed. It is as > important to receive a tweet that says "you don't need chains" as it > is to receive one that says "you'll need them from Kingvale to > Truckee", but as of right now, only one is allowed to get through. > > @tahoe_weather. Rebroadcasts National Weather Service warnings/ > watches and announcements relevant to people in Tahoe. It also has a > "No active advisory" tweet that it sends out when there are no longer > any active weather statements. Again, these "all clear" tweets are > getting filtered, which rather drastically reduces the usefulness of > the bot. > > > 2. In the Spam section of that policy we also clearly state that the rules > > will be changing as we adapt to new tactics > > I understand that it's impossible to really define spam and/or abuse, > and that anything that's ultimately an announcement-bot is going to be > walking a fine line. But those two bots above seem like they're not > remotely abusive, do seem like they're useful, and they're getting > swept up among the spammers.
