Argh - if twitter is going to reject a dup status, I need to know what
it's a dup of, not just the last status.

On Oct 19, 2:47 am, Dave Sherohman <> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:48:13PM -0700, Naveen wrote:
> > I agree. A silent failure seems like the wrong behavior.. It should
> > return an error if the tweet has failed to post.
> It's actually relatively benign in this specific case, since you can
> chop the status text down to 140 characters before submitting it, thus
> ensuring that it won't be rejected for length.
> However, Twitter has also gotten a bit more strict with blocking
> duplicate statuses.  While testing my fix for the "silently reject over-
> length status text" problem, I was getting a lot of failures when I knew
> I was sending updates that were under 140 in length.  It turned out that
> any update which was a duplicate of another update sent within the last
> hour (if not longer) was also being silently rejected in the same
> manner, even if it was not the same as the user's most recent status.
> This is not a failure mode which can be reliably anticipated or
> compensated for prior to submitting the update, therefore Twitter *must*
> provide some indication in the response that it was rejected.
> There may also be other circumstances in which an update will silently
> fail which I haven't yet discovered.
> My current attempt at working around this is to compare the returned
> status ID against the highest ID previously seen by my application and,
> if the returned ID is not greater than the previous highest, reporting
> that the update was "rejected for an unspecified reason".  I don't like
> being unable to tell my users why it failed, but that seems to be the
> most reliable way of detecting these silent update failures until/
> unless Twitter provides notification that the update was rejected and
> at least a hint as to why.
> > Also this change was made without any announcement that I recall
> > seeing or can find now. This is a pretty significant change in
> > behavior for existing clients.. We are failing to post because people
> > are not getting an error and they believe it is our problem.
> Agreed.  That is a definite problem.
> --
> Dave Sherohman

Reply via email to