I don't know about paygrade, but more than a few Twitter employees
follow i80chains during the season. We hear you. I just don't know
what to suggest be done about the situation.

On Oct 15, 11:09 am, Toxic <phoneybolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 which leaves out-of-date information on the stream/feed.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