Great; thanks for the clarification.  I guess the last confusion I
have is regarding the authorization request itself.  Is that counted
as an api request?  That is, if I get 400 users and hour, each posting
a single update, but each one authenticating each time they do an
update, does that impact on the site's 350 REST/GET API calls/hr?

Thanks.  A lot of this terminology is still new to me...




On Feb 16, 2:12 am, Chris Thomson <chri...@chris24.ca> wrote:
> GET requests to the REST API (not the streaming API or search API; they fall 
> under different limits) count against the hourly rate limit. If you're making 
> the request as an authenticated user, it count's against the user's rate 
> limit. Otherwise, it counts against the IP address's (your website's IP 
> address's) hourly rate limit.
>
> POST requests, such as posting updates, don't count against the rate limit. 
> All methods that require POST requests have other limits, which usually 
> aren't public to prevent spam - 
> seehttp://help.twitter.com/forums/10711/entries/15364for details on that. So 
> no, posting an update on behalf of a user won't count against the hourly rate 
> limit.
>
> --
> Chris Thomson
>
> On 2010-02-15, at 7:20 PM, Paul wrote:
>
> > Sorry; I did look at the FAQ and search the archive, but still the
> > answer wasn't clear to me....
>
> > So far I have an ordinary authorized Twitter web application using
> > OAuth, not whitelisted or anything.  From what I understand in the
> > FAQ, that limits API requests from my website to 350/hr.
>
> > People are meant to post tweets from my website.  Does this mean that
> > the total of all tweets through my website are limited to 350/hour?
> > If users have to authenticate each tweet (which currently they do
> > because I don't store the tokens), does this mean the the whole site
> > is limited to a max of 175 tweets per hour total for all users?
>
> > Sorry if it's an uninformed question.  I did research it, & I've put
> > in a lot of work to get the site to work; now I'm trying to figure out
> > the policy issues....

Reply via email to