Marcel, How do I do that as an end user of search.twitter.com?
I know it's confusing, because I switched from talking about this issue as a developer to talking about this issue as an end user. I thought I made that clear when I said, "and I'm making this statement as a user of search.twitter.com, not as an API consumer." I have no interest in seeing old tweets when I do a search at http://search.twitter.com. I expect those search results to show me what is being said right now (i.e., real-time) about my search phrase. Yes, I know one can switch views with the API, but I wasn't talking about the API. On Apr 6, 12:44 pm, Marcel Molina <[email protected]> wrote: > If you have no interest in seeing "old tweets" then pass the parameter that > indicates that you want to strictly see the most recent tweets (the legacy > behavior). You get what you want and those who are interested in more signal > amongst the ever increasing noise can find out the > moderately-less-recent-but-most-popular results associated with their search > term. You represent one desired use case. There are others. We are providing > a mechanism to get one, the other or both. Choose whichever you like. > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Dewald Pretorius <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
