Thing is the new RT api simply does not express the same thing the classic RT @xxx is : It's a subset of a big set of meanings : [ "Like" , "Forward" , "Comment", "Thanks", "Emphasis", "Reply" ] (and I'm sure there are a lot more uses)
The rich semantic of classic RTs make them sometime difficult to analyze through simple algorithms but is a no-brainer for a human. Twitter (or Ev) thinks that they needed to disambiguate the RT concept. I'm really not sure about that on the user perspective ... though I see the advantages for the platform. They probably decided to chose the most frequent use (ie : "Like"). It's a really complex issue, I would not have addressed this way personally (we went through the exact same "brainstormings" when working on Yokway) but I'm curious to see where the new RT API leads to :) So probably we will keep on seeing classic RTs in the feed, I'll probably keep on RTing full text as I often need to say more / something else than "I Like it" to my (small) audience. As a developer, I'll try my best to be able to support both as long as possible. Stephane http://www.twazzup.com On Nov 13, 2:54 pm, Cameron Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Speaking for TTYtter only, while I'll support receiving retweets, I am > > > unhappy with the API as it currently exists and retweets received will > > > be canonized into the older format (and retweets sent will be done > > > programmatically in the older fashion instead of through the retweet > > > methods). I suspect there are other app authors who will also do something > > > similar. > > > I haven't looked closely at the RT API (it's not currently relevant to > > FishTwits, so I figure I'll let it stabilize before concerning myself > > with it), but would you mind sharing your issues with it, either here or > > off-list if you think that would be more appropriate? > > It isn't the API methods per se, it's the fact that (as others have pointed > out) there is no way to edit or mark up a tweet using the Retweet system as > it is currently designed. This is important to me personally, and certainly > to anyone posting with #saveretweets. Also, as implied by the fact that I > won't be supporting it in its current form, it's easy enough to continue to > post in the old manner (or come up with a new one), which dilutes its alleged > advantages in trackability and ignorability, and I've always considered > it more important to know who is doing the retweet than who is being > retweeted, because who the filter is tells me as much if not more than what > is being filtered through them. > > These are just complaints about the design of the system, although in fairness > to Ev, he has acknowledged some of the deficiencies and has implied they will > be fixed in later versions (cf. > > http://evhead.com/2009/11/why-retweet-works-way-it-does.html > > ). But I won't be supporting posting through it in its current form. > > -- > ------------------------------------ personal:http://www.cameronkaiser.com/-- > Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems *www.floodgap.com* [email protected] > -- BOND THEME NOW PLAYING: "Thunderball" > --------------------------------------
