I'm seeing that, too. Can you open a ticket? http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list
Thanks, Doug -- Do you follow me? http://twitter.com/dougw 2009/6/23 H12山本 裕介 <[email protected]> > > Hi, > > After the change, the API started to return status code:403 when there > is no matching tweets. > It used to be returning status code 404. > Will this be a permanent behavior? > ----------- > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]GET > http://search.twitter.com/search.json?q=from%3Atwit4j+doesnothit > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]X-Twitter-Client-URL: > http://yusuke.homeip.net/twitter4j/en/twitter4j-undefined.xml > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Accept-Encoding: gzip > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]User-Agent: twitter4j > http://yusuke.homeip.net/twitter4j/ > /undefined > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]X-Twitter-Client-Version: undefined > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Response: > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Age: 0 > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]X-Served-From: searchdb014 > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Content-Length: 53 > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Expires: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:55:32 GMT > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]X-Served-By: searchweb014.twitter.com > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Connection: close > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Server: hi > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]X-Cache: MISS > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Cache-Control: max-age=60, must- > revalidate, max-age=300 > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Status: 403 Forbidden > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]X-Varnish: 120647426 > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:50:32 GMT > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Vary: Accept-Encoding > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Content-Encoding: gzip > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Via: 1.1 varnish > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]X-Cache-Svr: searchweb014.twitter.com > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]Content-Type: application/json; > charset=utf-8 > [Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]{"error":"Exceptions::NoResults"} > ----------- > > Cheers, > -- > Yusuke Yamamoto > [email protected] > > this email is: [x] bloggable/twittable [ ] ask first [ ] private > follow me on : http://twitter.com/yusukeyamamoto > subscribe me at : http://yusuke.homeip.net/blog/ > > > On 6月24日, 午後12:44, Chad Etzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yep, looking good. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brooks Bennett<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Looks fixed now. Thanks! > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:24 pm, Matt Sanford <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> This was not intentional and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it > now. > > > > >> -- Matt > > > > >> On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Chad Etzel wrote: > > > > >> > Yeah, all of my timestamps are now busted and I'm just finding > out... > > >> > It looks like this was just a change in the Search API format, and > not > > >> > the REST API format? Is that correct? > > > > >> > Going bonkers, > > >> > -Chad > > > > >> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Christopher > > >> > Finke<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> Around 7:45pm Central time, I noticed that the format of the > > >> >> created_at timestamp changed from "Fri, 15 May 2009 14:41:50 +0000" > > >> >> to > > >> >> "2009-05-15 14:41:50 UTC". Was this change intentional? If so, > was > > >> >> it communicated anywhere? We had to rush out a fix to our app in > > >> >> order to change the format string we were using to parse the date. > > > > >> >> (The true issue, of course, is that Python needs a strtotime() like > > >> >> PHP. :-) > > > > >> >> Chris >
