The interesting thing I'm finding is that if I try to do anything that
elevates "popular" or "relevant" tweets, it causes the results to appear
less dynamic, more static, less lively, more dead. And that's bad for the
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:09 PM, John Kalucki <j...@twitter.com> wrote:
> I'd have to say that everyone from Twitter who posts on this list is very
> much a "Developer Advocate" and brings the concerns and viewpoints of the
> developer community as a whole into every meeting and decision. If there's
> ever an internal tension between a competing priority and the developer
> ecosystem, you can be assured that someone from this list will be taking the
> ecosystem into account, if not explicitly taking the ecosystem's side.
> OTOH, this is a complex system, a diverse ecosystem and a complicated
> business. Most choices are win-win for everyone, but sometimes there are
> shades of gray and there are some non-winners and sometimes even some
> flat-out losers. In more than a few cases I hear gripes from some devs about
> changes that are making other devs jump for joy.
> -John Kalucki
> Infrastructure, Twitter Inc.
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Dewald Pretorius <dpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nobody intended to be mean, and nobody put into question whether
>> everyone at Twitter is doing a good job.
>> As Andrew noted, it's just that the job of Developer Advocate is not
>> being done at all. I see no malice in that. I believe it is just a
>> misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of the role.
>> To boil it down to the simplest of levels, an advocate is a person who
>> pleads for a cause or propounds an idea.
>> Hence, a developer advocate speaks, pleads, or argues in favor of
>> developers, particularly when their needs, wishes, desires, or
>> interests diverge from the needs, wishes, desires, or interests of
>> On Apr 7, 12:22 am, Jaanus <jaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > My oh my, what discussion about advocacy and what not. I think Taylor,
>> > Raffi and everybody else from Twitter are doing a great job here and
>> > everyone is eager to learn and they know they have ways to go. Let's
>> > not get mean.
>> > I'm with those who say injecting popular searches into the search API
>> > results by Twitter still doesn't entirely make sense, given the way
>> > the rollout/communication is handled. Here is the problem/conversation
>> > in a nutshell:
>> > Twitter: "We are going to inject popular search results into the
>> > search API results, changing previous behavior that just returned
>> > recent results."
>> > Developers: "Wait a sec, this is a bad idea because of A, B and C.
>> > Maybe you can version the API better or some such."
>> > ... time passes, nothing happens ...
>> > Twitter: "Hi, we're starting to roll this out now."
>> > I don't particularly care for the popular results either way and I
>> > trust Twitter that it is good for users in the grand scheme of things,
>> > but the API behavior change is disturbing. It would be great to work
>> > against a fixed API target so that those who want search to work in a
>> > particular way can just work against a given API version, but with
>> > search, this is not an option, you only have one endpoint that's in
>> > this kind of flux.
>> > What I'm saying is Twitter as a company could just earn more developer
>> > street cred and respect here by handling this in a more graceful way.
>> > There comes a point in time where the "moving parts" argument as an
>> > excuse to not follow good API practices gets somewhat old.
>> > rgds,
>> > Jaanus
>> To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.