3 ms·

Exactly. In particular the API is rate-limited, even for whitelisted users. http://apiwiki.twitter.com/REST+API+Documentation#RateLimiting http://apiwiki.twitt

by dmolnar 18y ago

Exactly. In particular the API is rate-limited, even for whitelisted users. http://apiwiki.twitter.com/REST+API+Documentation#RateLimiting http://apiwiki.twitter.com/REST+API+Documentation#RateLimiti... This makes it hard to build your own analytics service. The XMPP "firehose" would help, but it is only available to specific partners, as well. While part of this is for scalability and performance, it offers Twitter a way to screen what sort of services people build on top of the data stream. So if they didn't like an analytics service as a competitor, they could just turn them off. There's integration with gnip as well, but I don't know what the exact features or limitations it has. Again, though, that feed is controlled by Twitter, so they could perhaps direct gnip to cut off a service they don't like. If you're curious, there are periodic discussions at the Twitter development google group on the effect of API limits. Sometimes these include ideas for reducing the number of API calls required to do something: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk That being said, Twitter has enough capital to acquire companies. Summize is now search.twitter.com, for example. Would not be surprised if some of that most recent $35MM is earmarked for buying companies that provide the next "big" twitter-driven service, whether that's analytics or something else. I'd guess they would try to go that route first, rather than take the bad PR from terminating a competitor.

sam_in_nyc 18y ago
If I were Twitter, Twitturly would be in my scope.
- dmolnar 18y ago
  Yes, I think Twitturly is interesting as well, although it has not yet made it into my list of things to check every day. It is the kind of site that might make sense to acquire. That being said, Twitter had an opportunity to buy Twitturly recently -- the author was trying to sell the site. As I understand it none of the offers met his reserve price. So does that mean Twitter wasn't interested (or wasn't aware), that they are interested but are waiting to see if it takes off, or that the didn't have the cash at the time?
  - sam_in_nyc 18y ago
    Same here, I don't check it daily. Rather, I do cross references with things I read on Reddit/Hackernews. It's interesting to see who the first people to tweet about something that becomes popular are. The downside about Twitturly is that nearly every tweet is the same: the title of the URL. There's less and less relevant information about URLs each time to I check it. It's a neat idea, but I don't think people are too hot for social media stuff anymore, in terms of acquiring. There are hundreds of ways to get quality URLs, and as far as I know, nobody has really proven it's profitable to provide those URLs. Albeit, sites have been acquired (Reddit, Delicious) around the principle, but I think those days are gone. I would love to be corrected though... Where did you hear about the author putting it up for sale?
    - dmolnar 18y ago
      So if the title of the story for the URL were more descriptive, you'd find the site stickier? Do you think this is the kind of thing that could be sent to Mechanical Turk? For how I heard about putting it up for sale, I follow the author's twitter stream, @jstrellner. He announced that Twitturly was for sale on 17 September 2008: http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/925586511 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/925586511 Later he states that the offers didn't make the reserve price and he isn't selling: http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/933884602 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/933884602 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/934021436 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/934021436
      - sam_in_nyc 18y ago
        Not so much the title.. it's just that most people that Tweet a URL tweet it in this format: <title of URL> tinyurl.com/fdjsk ... or basically what I'll call a "junk tweet" I like Twitturly for two reasons: the aggregation of tweets, and what the tweets themselves say. Reason #2 is getting less and less exciting, because more and more people are using automated means to tweet URLs, which results in the "junk tweet" as described above. Thanks for digging up that stuff :) Edit: On the front page, they do a good job of pruning out the junk tweets. But clicking on a URL and viewing the full tweet history shows mostly junk tweets. I'd very much like an option to hide that.

by dmolnar 18y ago

sam_in_nyc 18y ago

If I were Twitter, Twitturly would be in my scope.

dmolnar 18y ago
Yes, I think Twitturly is interesting as well, although it has not yet made it into my list of things to check every day. It is the kind of site that might make sense to acquire. That being said, Twitter had an opportunity to buy Twitturly recently -- the author was trying to sell the site. As I understand it none of the offers met his reserve price. So does that mean Twitter wasn't interested (or wasn't aware), that they are interested but are waiting to see if it takes off, or that the didn't have the cash at the time?
- sam_in_nyc 18y ago
  Same here, I don't check it daily. Rather, I do cross references with things I read on Reddit/Hackernews. It's interesting to see who the first people to tweet about something that becomes popular are. The downside about Twitturly is that nearly every tweet is the same: the title of the URL. There's less and less relevant information about URLs each time to I check it. It's a neat idea, but I don't think people are too hot for social media stuff anymore, in terms of acquiring. There are hundreds of ways to get quality URLs, and as far as I know, nobody has really proven it's profitable to provide those URLs. Albeit, sites have been acquired (Reddit, Delicious) around the principle, but I think those days are gone. I would love to be corrected though... Where did you hear about the author putting it up for sale?
  - dmolnar 18y ago
    So if the title of the story for the URL were more descriptive, you'd find the site stickier? Do you think this is the kind of thing that could be sent to Mechanical Turk? For how I heard about putting it up for sale, I follow the author's twitter stream, @jstrellner. He announced that Twitturly was for sale on 17 September 2008: http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/925586511 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/925586511 Later he states that the offers didn't make the reserve price and he isn't selling: http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/933884602 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/933884602 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/934021436 http://twitter.com/jstrellner/status/934021436
    - sam_in_nyc 18y ago
      Not so much the title.. it's just that most people that Tweet a URL tweet it in this format: <title of URL> tinyurl.com/fdjsk ... or basically what I'll call a "junk tweet" I like Twitturly for two reasons: the aggregation of tweets, and what the tweets themselves say. Reason #2 is getting less and less exciting, because more and more people are using automated means to tweet URLs, which results in the "junk tweet" as described above. Thanks for digging up that stuff :) Edit: On the front page, they do a good job of pruning out the junk tweets. But clicking on a URL and viewing the full tweet history shows mostly junk tweets. I'd very much like an option to hide that.