On Oct 15, 7:50 am, Ryan Sarver <rsar...@twitter.com> wrote:

> 1. Duplicate tweets HAS always been considered a violation.

Sure, it's always been a reason to kick someone off, but by attempting
to automatically police it, you've managed to take out a couple of
quite legitimate services, some of which were using twitter in new and
interesting ways.


But for those collecting examples of collateral damage, I've got
another one for you.  Perhaps someone "above the approptiate pay
grade" at Twitter is a skier/rider?  Because this change in behavior
(even if it's not a change in policy) is going to eliminate two
resources that Bay Area skiers tend to use.  Neither seems like
something that Twitter wants to shut off, but neither can continue to
operate with the current de-duplication filters:

@i80chains.  That rebroadcasts Caltrans's announcements for Interstate
80 in the Sierra Nevadas. During the winter, it lets people know when
chains are required to drive over Donner Pass.  When chain control is
turned off, it tweets "OPEN: NO RESTRICTIONS" (or something to that
effect).  That "all clear" tweet is getting caught by the filters,
which leaves out-of-date information on the stream/feed.  It is as
important to receive a tweet that says "you don't need chains" as it
is to receive one that says "you'll need them from Kingvale to
Truckee", but as of right now, only one is allowed to get through.

@tahoe_weather.  Rebroadcasts National Weather Service warnings/
watches and announcements relevant to people in Tahoe.  It also has a
"No active advisory" tweet that it sends out when there are no longer
any active weather statements.  Again, these "all clear" tweets are
getting filtered, which rather drastically reduces the usefulness of
the bot.


> 2. In the Spam section of that policy we also clearly state that the rules
> will be changing as we adapt to new tactics

I understand that it's impossible to really define spam and/or abuse,
and that anything that's ultimately an announcement-bot is going to be
walking a fine line.  But those two bots above seem like they're not
remotely abusive, do seem like they're useful, and they're getting
swept up among the spammers.

Reply via email to