Raffi, "We obviously feel that users want the most relevant tweets first." Has this been determined and confirmed with user focus groups, or is this just an opinion that originated somewhere in a Twitter office or meeting room?
I am one of those users, and I have just told you that I have no interest in seeing old tweets, regardless of how "popular" or "relevant" they deem to be by your algorithms. When I search Twitter (and I'm making this statement as a user of search.twitter.com, not as an API consumer) I want to see in real-time what is happening right now. That is why I am using search.twitter.com and not google.com for that purpose. If you're going to rather show "relevant" tweets, then I will instead use Google because their matching algorithms are far more advanced and mature. On Apr 6, 9:47 am, Raffi Krikorian <[email protected]> wrote: > hi dewald. > > we obviously feel that users want the most relevant tweets first (the > use of "popular" is unfortunate here). and the web interface of > search.twitter.com > has begun an evolution in that direction. > > it's still unclear what Twitter is going to do with the API (hence the > silence), however, to go with your argument: "time indexed" search is, > potentially, something a third party service could do. we do provide > the streaming API to get much-better-than-search-real-time results. > > On Apr 6, 2010, at 4:28 AM, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Raffi, > > > Tweet id is a no-brainer. We understand that an linear incrementing > > number does not scale because at some point it must cycle back to 1. > > > Search is a different animal. > > > When I do a Twitter search, I expect your system to tell me what is > > *happening* right now. I am NOT expecting your system to tell me what > > is *popular* right now. > > > This popular tweet thing is diluting and violating your entire mission > > of "real-time". > > > If I search for "earthquake" I want to see what is *happening* in > > real- > > time. I have no interest in seeing a 30-minute old tweet from @aplusk > > or @ev just because they are trusted accounts and the tweet is being > > retweeted a lot (to simplify the popularity algorithm). > > > If people have a need to see popular tweets, you know what? That is an > > ideal service to be provided by a third-party developer/service. > > > Twitter is real-time, and has defined real-time information. Stick to > > it. Don't dilute your mission. > > > On Apr 6, 1:03 am, Raffi Krikorian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> we have the developer advocate we want, but, of course, please feel > >> free to > >> reach out to taylor with your concerns and what you would like him > >> to do to > >> help you all out. i'm sure he would welcome the help. > > >> as for what's going on behind the scenes, i'll describe it out as so: > > >> - tweet ID generation - this is a pure scalability problem that > >> lays at > >> the heart of twitter being able to grow. unless i'm mistaken, > >> in the end, a > >> centralized way of generating tweet IDs that are strictly > >> increasing by one > >> does not scale. the method that we generate tweet IDs, and > >> therefore the > >> IDs themselves, will, almost probably, have to change. > >> - popular tweets in search - twitter is increasingly being > >> relied upon to > >> be the place for relevant real-time information. most end-users > >> would say > >> that a time indexed search stream is not as valuable. as you > >> all can > >> probably tell, keeping a real time search index operational is > >> hard enough, > >> but imagine keeping a service running that is simultaneously > >> delivering > >> relevant results along with time indexed results. that's > >> significantly > >> harder. > > >> those are the issues facing us. as i said, please bear with us -- > >> once we > >> have weighed all these issues internally, we will of course, let > >> everybody > >> know. we've heard the concerns, but, if there are new ones, please > >> let us > >> know! > > >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Orian Marx (@orian) > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > >>> Raffi, one of the things that really stands out for me in what you > >>> are > >>> saying here is that there are lots of "moving pieces" that the > >>> team is > >>> trying to "align quickly". The question is, who and what is > >>> dictating > >>> the schedule? I get the sense that all the recent changes are > >>> parts of > >>> a bigger picture plan for Twitter, but the reality is that Twitter > >>> HQ > >>> has not conveyed a real sense of this bigger picture to the > >>> developer > >>> community - and it certainly hasn't conveyed why these recent > >>> changes > >>> need to "align quickly". So inevitably the situation at hand seems > >>> to > >>> be that some serious developer concerns effectively need to be > >>> pushed > >>> aside in order to meet some internal goals of Twitter that have not > >>> been made public. I can understand that as a choice that Twitter > >>> management might make. What I think would be unreasonable would be > >>> for > >>> Twitter to expect the developer community to not push back. > > >>> I think it's pretty clear that the "developer advocate" concept > >>> needs > >>> to be fleshed out more, and i'll try to push for that at Chirp. If > >>> anyone else is interested in helping make that discussion > >>> productive, > >>> lets get started :-) > > >>> On Apr 5, 8:45 pm, Raffi Krikorian <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> to clarify (from my personal view), what taylor has provided to > >>>> the team > >>> is > >>>> a clear view into what developers want / think / feel -- > >>>> basically, a > >>> pulse > >>>> on the developer community. he's doing a fine job. and for these > >>>> particular issues, not only has he conveyed the feelings of our > >>> community, > >>>> but everybody on the team has also heard it personally. i hope > >>>> we have > >>> more > >>>> to say about both these topics soon. as you can all imagine, > >>>> there is a > >>>> myriad of moving pieces that we are all trying to get to align > >>>> quickly -- > >>>> there are technical issues, there are the concerns of our > >>>> developer and > >>> user > >>>> community, and then, of course, there are the overall objectives of > >>> Twitter, > >>>> Inc. getting them all to align is, at times, ridiculously > >>>> difficult. > > >>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> To be fair to Taylor, we may be expecting too much from his role. > > >>>>> When reading the job description of a Twitter Developer Advocate > >>>>> [1], > >>>>> the only traditional advocate responsibility listed there is > >>>>> "Represent developer needs when planning new API features and > >>>>> changes." > > >>>>> Now, if Taylor conveyed our objections to the Platform team, > >>>>> then he > >>>>> adequately executed that responsibility. I'm sure he did. > > >>>>> The rest of the responsibilities all speak in a Twitter to > >>>>> Developer > >>>>> direction, i.e., more a Communicator than an Advocate. > > >>>>> In particular, in the About This Job section, it says, "it is > >>>>> necessary to have an official voice regularly communicating with > >>>>> the > >>>>> community," which underlines Communicator instead of Advocate. > > >>>>> [1]http://dld.bz/7Z > > >>>>> On Apr 4, 9:39 pm, funkatron <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> Taylor, > > >>>>>> I'm about to vent. Sorry about this. > > >>>>>> At some point did you plan on addressing any of the numerous > >>>>>> complaints raised against making this anything other than opt-in? > > >>>>>> Several of us raised this, and you offered no response for 10 > >>>>>> days. > >>>>>> See <http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/ > >>>>>> browse_thread/thread/983086ae9935d50c/d4a8e0fbc0fee5c0? > >>>>>> lnk=gst&q=popular+search#d4a8e0fbc0fee5c0> > > >>>>>> When you *did* post, you didn't actually address any concerns, > >>>>>> or say > >>>>>> "hey, I spoke with the API team. This is why it's going like > >>>>>> this." > >>>>>> Like, say, an advocate of 3rd party developers would do. > > >>>>>> I'm not doing Twitter any favors; I realize that. I'm just the > >>>>>> developer of a tiny, old open source client whose been hacking > >>>>>> away > >>> on > >>>>>> the API since spring of 2007. I'm not a strategic partner, and I > >>> don't > >>>>>> bring Twitter any value. No VC funding will be coming my way, I'm > >>>>>> afraid, and it doesn't make headlines on TechCrunch when I add > >>>>>> a new > >>>>>> feature (ping.fm? I supported that in 2007). > > >>>>>> But what I would like is to be treated with some respect. If > >>>>>> you post > >>>>>> something, and get significant pushback, I'd expect at *very* > >>>>>> least > >>>>>> some explanation about why doing it the way you guys want to do > >>>>>> it is > >>>>>> a great idea. If you are an advocate for 3rd party developers, > >>>>>> as I > >>>>>> interpreted your title, then doing us the courtesy of not simply > >>>>>> ignoring/avoiding the concerns we voice seems like part of your > >>>>>> job. > > >>>>>> It seems like you're doing a lot of selling of changes to *us*. > >>> That's > >>>>>> not an advocate -- that's an evangelist. If your role there is an > >>>>>> evangelist, then fine. You're doing a good job of ignoring the > >>> tougher > >>>>>> questions and sticking to company lines. > > >>>>>> The point here is that I used to cut the API crew a lot of slack > >>>>>> because I thought they at least weren't feeding us a line. I felt > >>> they > >>>>>> actually were aiming for transparency, but were just overworked. > > >>>>>> If this is the way things are gonna go with someone who is, > >>>>>> presumably, tasked with being *our* advocate, I think Twitter is > >>>>>> losing the thread. Maybe it doesn't matter for you guys > >>>>>> financially, > >>>>>> and you'll go on and do Very Important Things and lots of > >>>>>> people will > >>>>>> continue to view Twitter as Game-Changing Technology, but it > >>>>>> sure is > >>> a > >>>>>> bummer for me. > > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Ed Finklerhttp://funkatron.com > >>>>>> @funkatron > >>>>>> AIM: funka7ron / ICQ: 3922133 / XMPP:[email protected]<XMPP > >>>>>> %[email protected]> > >>> <xmpp%[email protected] <xmpp%[email protected]>> > > >>>>>> On Apr 1, 8:53 pm, Taylor Singletary > >>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> Hi Folks, > > >>>>>>> As indicated a few weeks ago, we're launching our new *beta* > >>>>> enhancements to > >>>>>>> search.twitter.com and the Search API today -- it's currently > >>> rolling > >>>>> out to > >>>>>>> our servers. Thank you all for your feedback. > > >>>>>>> *Key API Takeaways*: > > >>>>>>> - During the current phase, receiving "popular tweets" in your > >>> API > >>>>> search > >>>>>>> results is *OPT-IN*. You will not see the new top results in > >>>>>>> search > >>>>> unless > >>>>>>> you specify the *result_typ**e* parameter on your search query > >>> string. > > >>>>>>> - The result_type parameter takes one of > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
