i, for one, enjoy hearing (constructive) criticisms -- people should feel
free to mail to this list, send a tweet to @twitterapi, find us on IRC, or,
in the case of sensitive information, reach out to some of us directly.  it
forces us at twitter to become better.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Raffi,
>
> People keep quiet and don't say what they really think on these forums
> because they are scared of falling out of favor with you guys. That is
> what I meant.
>
> On Feb 15, 5:54 pm, Raffi Krikorian <ra...@twitter.com> wrote:
> > "the wrath of the platform team" <- that's a highly unfair
> characterization.
> >  just sayin'.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Look, it is self-evident by now that this heavy-handed Gestapo-like
> > > action against applications is causing great anxiety in the developer
> > > community. We now have two very recent incidents, one of which was
> > > handled by Brian, who is part of the Platform team.
> >
> > > For every person who has commented on this thread, there are numerous
> > > others who remain silent out of fear of incurring the wrath of the
> > > Platform team. I know, some of them have emailed me privately about
> > > this.
> >
> > > Ryan, we need to hear from you, please.
> >
> > > This is not a good situation, neither for you nor for us, and we
> > > cannot solve this. Only you can.
> >
> > > On Feb 15, 4:16 pm, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I thought Twitter didn't like bots?  If so, why did they apparently
> > > > have one send out suspension warnings?  That's at least my conclusion
> > > > given their non-response to questions, at least in that case.
> >
> > > > (As well, it seems as though the OAuth push is, at least in part,
> > > > about app policing.)
> >
> > > > One would have thought that the Twitter police would be better aimed
> > > > at enacting policies to deal with abuse by end-users, rather than
> such
> > > > a heavy hand against apps.  What's next?  TweetDeck is going to be
> > > > banned because they allow single-button duplicate tweets across
> > > > multiple accounts?
> >
> > > > Some of us have built businesses and livelihoods around Twitter.
>  It's
> > > > scary to have those things threatened by the possibility of
> capricious
> > > > enforcement handled by "no questions please" email demands.
> >
> > > > On Feb 15, 11:11 am, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Sounds like Twitter dropped the ball with notifications. It appears
> > > that
> > > > > Twitter normally does send notifications before suspension as
> Refollow
> > > [1]
> > > > > got 2 warning. Although Rob had the issue of no response to
> > > clarifications.
> >
> > > > > Abraham
> >
> > > > > [1]
> > >
> http://refollow.tumblr.com/post/380619972/weve-been-suspended-by-twitter
> >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:34, PJB <pjbmancun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Wow.  What's really of concern is the capricious approach Twitter
> > > > > > seems to have with app developers.  Some apps are given a month
> to
> > > > > > make a change, some are cut off immediately, some are sent legal
> > > > > > letters, some are contacted beforehand, some aren't.
> >
> > > > > > Frankly, there should be no tracking code.  If there is an issue,
> > > > > > apart from extreme situations, Twitter should contact the app
> and, as
> > > > > > they apparently did with socialtoo, give some reasonable period
> of
> > > > > > time to remedy.
> >
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:02 am, Peter Denton <petermden...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > 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/jkSA1andtweetedthesametextfour
> > > > > > > > > > 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
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
>



-- 
Raffi Krikorian
Twitter Platform Team
http://twitter.com/raffi

Reply via email to