The in_reply_to info is definitely set. It's showing up properly in
TweetDeck. However things are right now, I don't think they should be
touched.
On Oct 13, 3:28 pm, Matt Harris wrote:
> Looking into this it shows this is a presentation issue on twitter.com
> as these are mentions. To confirm th
When in_reply_to_status_id was originally added you could "reply" to a
tweet without including the @username in the tweet, and twitter would
accept that (and thread that) as a proper reply. On the one hand this
freed up a few additional characters for the reply, but also lead to
confusion since p
The in_reply_to fields are set:
http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/27265789132.json
I can confirm that the screen_name can be contained anywhere in the text for
replies. It has been this way for as long as i can remember except in the
#vintagetwitter web interface.
Here is another example whe
Looking into this it shows this is a presentation issue on twitter.com
as these are mentions. To confirm this I checked the in_reply_to
fields in the API response. In these messages the in_reply_to fields
are null. This can also be seen when not in #newtwitter -
http://twitter.com/mikedizon does no
It seems like a proper @reply does not require a leading @username.
Take this recent reply to me for example:
http://twitter.com/#!/mikedizon/statuses/27265789132
(note the reply was created via twitter.com too).
On Oct 8, 12:07 pm, Taylor Singletary
wrote:
> I've never known this to work, but I
I've never known this to work, but I easily could be wrong. API won't do
anything to stop you from doing this -- but it won't be considered an
@reply. HootSuite very well could do some server-side association of the
post since it is cognizant of the intent during creation -- but that seems
far-fetc
When did this change to actually require starting the @reply with the
@username? HootSuite has long supported sending tweets in reply to
others without leading with the @username. Does this no longer work?
On Oct 7, 3:42 pm, Taylor Singletary
wrote:
> With as often as this comes up, it's obvious
Thanks Taylor, I appreciate it. I didnt see mention of that in the
http://developer.twitter.com/doc/post/statuses/update documentation.
-Matt
On Oct 7, 1:42 pm, Taylor Singletary
wrote:
> With as often as this comes up, it's obvious that we aren't communicating
> this clearly and the historical
Opps I meant to mark the title as 'in_reply_to_status_id'.
On Oct 7, 1:37 pm, Matthew wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Been working on a project that will allow users to reply to tweets. I
> am having difficulty in getting the 'in_reply_to_message_id' to be
> acknowledged. I have been using the latest version
