Twitter should at least send a notification suspension, as well as a
tracking code possibly, for both parties benefits, twitter and the app.

*Reason*: My app was suspended, for something perfectly harmless, and was
re-granted permission the next day,  but it took a few communications with
twitter to resolve.

This is only going to continue to become more and more frequent. I would
hate to envision a team of a few people having to follow up on app
suspensions w/o reference.



On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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