[twitter-dev] Re: Best way to test success/failure for a status update
On Jan 21, 12:26 am, Raffi Krikorian wrote: > to be very precise, all that we guarantee is that the id is monotonically > increasing -- we don't have any guarantees on the rate at which the ids are > increasing Thanks! That's what I suspected. I'm a hard guy about stuff like that. Once bitten, twice shy? More like bitten a thousand times and still avoid the snake! ;-) Which means, of course, that all the bloggers who post about Twitter usage and growth rates with stats based on IDs need to be "politely" dismissed. Too bad I flunked politeness. ;-)
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: Best way to test success/failure for a status update
to be very precise, all that we guarantee is that the id is monotonically increasing -- we don't have any guarantees on the rate at which the ids are increasing On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2010/1/16 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky > > Is >> this in fact a valid assumption, and is it documented anywhere? I'm >> anal about that sort of thing for a variety of reasons. ;-) >> > > Yes. I'm not sure if it is documented anywhere other then emails from > Twitter to the group. > > Abraham > > -- > Abraham Williams | Moved to Seattle | May cause email delays > Project | Intersect | http://intersect.labs.poseurtech.com > Hacker | http://abrah.am | http://twitter.com/abraham > This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private. > Sent from Seattle, WA, United States > -- Raffi Krikorian Twitter Platform Team http://twitter.com/raffi
Re: [twitter-dev] Re: Best way to test success/failure for a status update
2010/1/16 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky > Is > this in fact a valid assumption, and is it documented anywhere? I'm > anal about that sort of thing for a variety of reasons. ;-) > Yes. I'm not sure if it is documented anywhere other then emails from Twitter to the group. Abraham -- Abraham Williams | Moved to Seattle | May cause email delays Project | Intersect | http://intersect.labs.poseurtech.com Hacker | http://abrah.am | http://twitter.com/abraham This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private. Sent from Seattle, WA, United States
[twitter-dev] Re: Best way to test success/failure for a status update
On Jan 16, 1:56 am, Dave Sherohman wrote: > Every status has a unique ID number. Any new status will have an ID > higher than any prior status[1]. [snip] > [1] Possibly modulo a little inconsistency for updates received > simultaneously by separate servers; I don't know whether Twitter's > architecture handles this situation, but it can be safely ignored unless > you're going to be submitting multiple updates over different network > connections at exactly the same instant. That brings up an interesting point. I've seen "Twitter statistics reports" that assume not only that status ID numbers are always increasing, but increase by 1! In other words, if you look at the tweet stream on Friday noon UTC and tweet 9,000,000,000 goes by, you look at the stream on Saturday noon UTC and tweet 9,001,000,000 goes by, you can figure that a million tweets were created in 24 hours. Is this in fact a valid assumption, and is it documented anywhere? I'm anal about that sort of thing for a variety of reasons. ;-) -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://borasky-research.net/smart-at-znmeb "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems." ~ Paul Erdős
