The argument of, "Clearly defining rules helps the spammers because
then they know exactly how to stay just within the boundaries," holds
_absolutely no_ water.

Imagine you own an ice rink. You draw a circle with a radius of 2
meters on the ice, and make the rule that it's okay to skate inside
the circle, and not okay to skate outside the circle.

If someone skates right at the edge, at 1.999 meters, all the time, it
_does not matter_ because you have decided that it is okay and
acceptable to skate there.

The same goes with Twitter rules. Make the rules very granular and
very clear. Then, if someone skates just within the fringes, _it does
not matter_ because they are still within what you deem acceptable.

And, then _everyone_ knows where is the line between good and bad
application behavior, because then it is a fence and not a broad gray
smudge.

Most app developers are _not_ "the enemy" and most app developers will
be more than happy to not develop or to disable features that violate
the rules.

If only we can understand the rules.

On Feb 15, 12:04 am, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to what Dewald says.
>
> We are purposely NOT developing certain features for fear that Twitter
> may suddenly change their rules once again.  Is this the sort of
> business environment that Twitter wishes to foster?
>
> We had assumed that, at the very least, applications would be
> contacted before any sort of action on Twitter's behalf.  But
> apparently not.  And apparently this push for OAuth integration is
> simply a means to more easily cut-off access to certain apps.
>
> Ugly.
>
> On Feb 14, 4:30 pm, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I attempted to make clear that my issue was not with the guilt or
> > innocence of GoTwitr.
>
> > It's with the message being sent to all of us when no communication
> > accompanies a suspension.
>
> > I'm going to beat the dead horse yet again. With vague and nebulous
> > rules, nobody knows for certain what is allowed and what is not.
>
> > Twitter invite people to build businesses using their system and API.
> > By providing the platform, extending the invitation, and making the
> > rules, they are also assuming a responsibility.
>
> > It is a grave concern that one's business can be terminated by Twitter
> > with no warning and no explanation, based on some rule that nobody
> > knows for certain exactly what it entails. It would have been a
> > slightly different situation had their rules been as clearly defined
> > as Facebook's rules, but they're not, with intention.
>
> > Take follower churn for example. Do I churn followers if I unfollow
> > ten people in a day, and follow five others? Or do I only churn if I
> > unfollow a hundred? Or is it two hundred? Or, wait, is the number
> > immaterial while my intention puts me in violation or not? If so, how
> > is my intention discerned?
>
> > Take duplicate content for example. If I tweet "Happy New Year!" every
> > January 1st, is that duplicate content? What about "Good morning
> > tweeps!" every morning? Will my personal and business accounts be
> > suspended if I tweet, "Can't wait for the iPad!" from the same IP
> > address at roughly the same time? What if I did what Guy Kawasaki
> > recommended athttp://bit.ly/jkSA1andtweeted the same text four
> > times a day, will my account be suspended?
>
> > These are question my users ask me, and I don't have an answer for
> > them.
>
> > On Feb 14, 6:51 pm, Tim Haines <tmhai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dewald,
>
> > > Try looking in the google cache.  I'm surprised it was allowed to live for
> > > as long as it 
> > > did.http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:o2N2KuZsuYgJ:www.gotwitr.com/+go...
>
> > > It was basically a spam enabler.
>
> > > T.
>
> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> 
> > > wrote:
> > > > I cannot comment on what Jim's site did or didn't do, since he has
> > > > pulled all descriptive information from the site.
>
> > > > Nevertheless, it is highly disturbing that applications are being
> > > > suspended without any notice. This particular site seems to have had a
> > > > contact form, plus it was OAuth, so the owner could have been
> > > > contacted via the email address on file for the Twitter user that owns
> > > > the application.
>
> > > > Yes, some apps do stuff that warrant suspension. But, to just suspend
> > > > an app with no communication is bad.
>
> > > > If Twitter don't want to give some sites the opportunity to correct
> > > > transgressive behavior (I know they do communicate in some cases), at
> > > > the very least send an email to the owner with, "Your service has been
> > > > suspended because...", and give a clear path and instructions on how
> > > > the situation can be remedied as soon as possible.
>
> > > > I'm going to say it again, Twitter: Your rules are vague and nebulous.
> > > > Not everyone understands and interprets the rules the way you do
> > > > internally.
>
> > > > You must realize that actions like these sometimes shout so loud that
> > > > we cannot hear when you say, "We care about our developers."
>
> > > > Rightly or wrongly, here's a developer who has lost face with his user
> > > > base, and has been in the dark for 4 days now. The message it sends to
> > > > us, the other developers, is a very bad message. If you properly
> > > > communicated with Jim, he probably wouldn't even have posted about it
> > > > here.
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 3:56 pm, Jim Fulford <j...@fulford.me> wrote:
> > > > > Hello, I need some help.  4 days ago I started getting emails from my
> > > > > users that they could not login to our site using the Oauth service.
> > > > > I checked my site and it said my application had been suspended.   I
> > > > > did not get any email from Twitter, they just deactivated my
> > > > > application so nothing works.  I have sent in two support tickets, but
> > > > > gotten no response.  2 days ago, I took my site downwww.gotwitr.com
> > > > > so that I would stop getting support email from my users.
>
> > > > > I have had this site up for 5 months, and I have over 5000 users have
> > > > > used the service.  I am so glad that I have never charged for the
> > > > > service, this would be a nightmare.
>
> > > > > If they would let me know what our site, or one of our users did to
> > > > > get banned, we would be glad to fix it.   We have tried to make our
> > > > > site as Twitter API friendly as possible.
>
> > > > > We are 100% Oauth, we have never saved or requested any users
> > > > > passwords.
> > > > > We only let our users hit the Twitter API 1000 times in a 24 hour
> > > > > period
> > > > > We have all of our tools that follow or unfollow use individual user
> > > > > verification, (no mass follow or unfollow)
>
> > > > > An email with the issue would have been great.
>
> > > > > Not getting a response in the last 4 days that my site has been down
> > > > > is really not acceptable!
>
> > > > > Thanks

Reply via email to