With communication like that, we can together figure out ways to give
the users what they want in a manner that does not put undue strain on
your system.

Pissing developers off is NOT the right way to do it.

Dewald

On Oct 13, 10:58 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chad,
>
> Perhaps it will behoove the "powers that be" to actually speak to some
> of us developers to discover the ways people are using Twitter. When
> decisions are made from the isolation of the glass bubble of the
> Twitter Head Office, without really knowing what the USERS want, stuff
> like this ensues.
>
> Dewald
>
> On Oct 13, 10:28 pm, Chad Etzel <c...@twitter.com> wrote:
>
> > Believe it or not, I've been reading every post on this thread with
> > great intent. I have been proxying major points to "powers that be"
> > and started an internal discussion on the topic at hand. The resulting
> > decisions and policies that may be made/enforced from these
> > discussions is, how do you say, "above my pay grade."
>
> > We do listen to these threads as long as the discussion remains
> > constructive, which this one has.
>
> > -Chad
>
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only Twitter participation we've had thus far on this unfortunate
> > > matter was Chad aging 10 years in 10 seconds over the idea that
> > > someone can write a desktop or browser script that scrapes the login
> > > page and then do whatever the hell it pleases (you know, like posting
> > > something awful like recurring tweets).
>
> > > The sad thing is this. Selected people at Twitter are very familiar
> > > with my level of cooperation with them. Believe it or not, there are
> > > people in Twitter who actually view me as "one of the good guys".
>
> > > With my users having a recurring tweet feature available to them, and
> > > with the cooperation of Twitter and suitable information from Twitter,
> > > I could have contained the matter programmatically.
>
> > > But, with what essentially amounts as a flat-out rejection of my offer
> > > to cooperate and change my system to prevent duplicate tweets, they
> > > have now sent all those users off somewhere else, into the loving arms
> > > of people who couldn't give a shit about working with Twitter, and
> > > have in essence unleashed recurring tweet hell on themselves.
>
> > > The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly magically
> > > disappeared. Let me repeat that. Hopefully someone in Twitter will
> > > take notice. The demand for recurring tweets has not suddenly
> > > magically disappeared.
>
> > > Dewald
>
> > > On Oct 13, 9:22 pm, JDG <ghil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I dunno. It'd be nice. I personally like rearranging deck chairs like 
> > >> this.
> > >> It was civil and, hopefully, productive.
>
> > >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 17:39, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > I often wonder whether our non-API musings here on these forums have
> > >> > any effect on anything, or are we just amusing ourselves by
> > >> > rearranging deck chairs?
>
> > >> > Dewald
>
> > >> > On Oct 13, 8:03 pm, Justyn <justyn.how...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > If duplicate tweets are the concern, then why are RT's on their way 
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > being a feature?
>
> > >> > > Abuse is the concern. Not duplicate content, right?
>
> > >> > > So a local restaurant can't setup a tweet to go out on Wednesdays to
> > >> > > remind their followers of 1/2 off appetizers? There's no ill intent
> > >> > > here, and they have businesses to run. Doesn't twitter want 
> > >> > > businesses
> > >> > > to foster it's platform? There's valid uses for recurring content
> > >> > > within reason. It's not realistic to ask users to come up with 52
> > >> > > unique headlines, hunt down the associated link and fire up the 
> > >> > > laptop
> > >> > > prior to happy to hour every Wednesday at 6:00 in order to get a
> > >> > > message out to people who opted to follow them.
>
> > >> > > What's the happy-medium here?
>
> > >> > > On Oct 13, 4:00 pm, JDG <ghil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > They already do that ... in SOME cases. Pharmacies are required (or
> > >> > maybe
> > >> > > > simply strongly encouraged) to sell OTC meds like Sudafed behind 
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > counter
> > >> > > > because some people use that to make crystal meth. The government
> > >> > requires a
> > >> > > > waiting period on guns because some people use guns to murder 
> > >> > > > people.
>
> > >> > > > Rightly or wrongly -- and I seriously believe you did this with no
> > >> > abusive
> > >> > > > intent -- you provided a tool that made it very easy for users to 
> > >> > > > post
> > >> > > > duplicate tweets. They didn't shut you down. They gave you a stern
> > >> > warning.
>
> > >> > > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:39, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > Now there is an excellent analogy, which begs the question, 
> > >> > > > > "Where is
> > >> > > > > the user's responsibility in this?"
>
> > >> > > > > I have very clearly warned my users, every time they enter a 
> > >> > > > > tweet,
> > >> > > > > that they must adhere to the Twitter Rules, with hyperlinks to 
> > >> > > > > those
> > >> > > > > rules. That was not good enough.
>
> > >> > > > > So, with your analogy in mind, should the authorities pull over
> > >> > > > > speeders, or should they shut down manufacturers that make 
> > >> > > > > vehicles
> > >> > > > > that can exceed the speed limit? Or, in a different analogy, 
> > >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > the government shut down Home Depot because they sell chain saws 
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > box cutters, and some people use chain saws and box cutters to 
> > >> > > > > murder
> > >> > > > > other human beings?
>
> > >> > > > > Dewald
>
> > >> > > > > On Oct 13, 5:31 pm, JDG <ghil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > Yes, and should be treated as such. I personally detest all 
> > >> > > > > > those
> > >> > stupid
> > >> > > > > > twitter-based games. Point is, with Twitter's userbase, some 
> > >> > > > > > get
> > >> > through
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > cracks. Don't like it, report it. This is like complaining that
> > >> > cops only
> > >> > > > > > pull over SOME speeders. Yeah, some are going to get through 
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > cracks.
>
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Internets. Serious business.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Internets. Serious business.

Reply via email to