I don't think that adding more people to the staff at Twitter is the
solution. In one startup I saw a thing posted on the refrigerator that
had the adage, "Adding more people to a project already behind
schedule will only slow it down more". Surely for support and customer
service issues having more people on the team to deal with growth is
good, but I doubt throwing more programmers at it will help fix most
issues. It just never seems to work that way.

While many startups do tend toward younger employees (I personally
think because being younger normally means that you can work a lot
with minimal life impact), I'm sure that someone with a strong
background would be able to get a job at Twitter if they were local to
the company (or willing to move).

A lot of this surely comes down to priorities inside the company.
While Doug and Team want to support us developers as much as possible,
much of our initial 'value' that we've offered in helping push twitter
to the masses has already happened. We aren't the core business
strategy, and with a fixed amount of resources and focus they aren't
working to push mainly for developer access, but for standard user
access. This 100% makes sense. Users are what is going to make twitter
happen, not 3rd party developers. They want to provide a stable
experience on both fronts, but users come first.

In my private discussions with some team members, I've gotten the
sense that they have good stuff in the pipeline for us and that they
are working hard to make it happen. However we're only a small part of
the overall strategy of a quickly growing company that is still
dealing with massive growing pains which is no fault of theirs and
something they are dealing with as best they can.

david

On Jul 28, 1:46 pm, owkaye <owk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure others feel the same way Dave, but it looks and
> feels like Twitter is moving in the opposite direction.  
>
> The load on a server to extract a big dataset once a month
> would be minimal, and both you and I can see the value in
> this approach. But I'm not sure the folks at Twitter do, or
> if they do maybe they just don't have the people who can
> (and will) get things like this implemented.  Is a shortage
> of competent staff the cause of this type of problem?
>
> Even though I have the capabilities I do not have the
> 'resume' to get a job there and help them deal with some of
> this stuff, nor do I have the contacts within the Twitter
> organization to put a good word in for me and help me get
> hired so I could do good things for them.
>
> I'm 52 years old too, and my age seems to be a negative to
> most of the Web 2.x companies hiring these days.  This is
> kind of a shame considering that people like me frequently
> have broader-based experience and insights that are
> sometimes lacking in younger people, and because of this we
> can add a lot more value in the areas of planning and
> structural development than people half our age.  Our coding
> skills are honed after so many years of experience too, not
> to mention the thousands of code snippets we have collected
> over the years to contribute to making us even faster.
>
> But since jobs like this are basically not open to me and
> many other folks my age, my alternative is to remain self-
> employed and try to build something on top of their existing
> available source data and API's ... and then deal with the
> issues and frustrations created when building a service on
> top of a 'moving target' that sometimes seems to be moving
> in funny directions.
>
> I hear about Twitter having lots of money to work with, and
> I'm probably wrong here but it almost seems like there's too
> little of this money being dedicated to paying new talent
> with long term views of some of these issues, and who will
> implement wise policies to help support and encourage rapid
> growth in the areas that are lacking.  But once again this
> might just be due to a shortage of the right staff.
>
> Obviously we cannot do anything from the outside except
> point out these issues and ask questions, or beg and plead
> for changes, but it sure would be great if a few of us could
> actually get in there as employees and implement a couple of
> the new features we really need -- such as a new Historical
> Search API for example.  Then developers like you and I
> could proceed with some of our plans now, instead of months
> or years from now ... or possibly never.  I would love to
> lead a team on a project like this, or even be one of its
> members, but until it happens I'll focus on building my own
> little space in the Twitter universe and continue to hope
> for the best.
>
> :)
>
> Owkaye
>
>
>
> > I would do anything (including paying good amounts of
> > money) to be able to purchase access to older datasets
> > that I could transfer to my database through non-rest-api
> > methods. I'm envisioning being able to download a CSV or
> > SQL file that I could merge with my database easily, but
> > only have to make a single request to the server to get a
> > month of data. I'd sign agreements and pay money for
> > such.
>
> > dave
>
> > On Jul 28, 12:03 pm, owkaye <owk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I agree with you Dave.  I have several thought about
> > > new services based on searching Twitter's historical
> > > data. Unfortunately my ideas appear to be getting less
> > > and less practical.
>
> > > Twitter claims to have all its data stored in
> > > disk-based databases from what I understand ... yet
> > > without access to this data it is worthless.
>
> > > It seems to me they could allow searches of this
> > > historical data via a new "History API" then let us
> > > cache the results on our own servers.  Most of the
> > > services I've conceived would do this infrequently --
> > > never in real time -- and would not impact their
> > > existing "cached" server data because this historical
> > > data would exist on separate data storage servers ...
> > > theoretically anyways.
>
> > > Owkaye
>
> > > > I am a bit concerned. I remember at one point it
> > > > being between 30-45 days. Now it seems to be getting
> > > > smaller by about 1-day per month. Last month it was
> > > > closer to 10 days.
>
> > > > Is it basically going to keep getting smaller and
> > > > smaller until we get V2 of the API, or will we be
> > > > forced to all use only streaming services and then
> > > > locally cache everything that we'd want to search for
> > > > any time period?
>
> > > > I know there are a LOT of problems inherent in the
> > > > massive scaling out of Twitter, and this is just a
> > > > symptom of them- but at the same time I can only
> > > > imagine how unusable Google would be if you only had
> > > > a 7-day window to Search in, and couldn't get any
> > > > content made prior to that. Very worried about this
> > > > soon being a 2-3 day window.
>
> > > > dave

Reply via email to