Before today, the value of the in_reply_to_status_id field was validated by two requirements,:
1) It was set to a valid status_id 2) The valid status_id's author from #1 was @replied in the update (@reply here is the old definition where "@user" was at the beginning of the tweet).
If the value of in_reply_to_status_id did not meet these criteria, it was silently dropped.
We have relaxed requirement #2 to permit mentions, meaning that the user of the referenced tweet needs to be included somewhere in the update. Enjoy the new data!
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote: > Before today, the value of the in_reply_to_status_id field was validated by > two requirements,:
> 1) It was set to a valid status_id > 2) The valid status_id's author from #1 was @replied in the update (@reply > here is the old definition where "@user" was at the beginning of the tweet).
> If the value of in_reply_to_status_id did not meet these criteria, it was > silently dropped.
> We have relaxed requirement #2 to permit mentions, meaning that the user of > the referenced tweet needs to be included somewhere in the update. Enjoy the > new data!
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM, P Burrows <pburr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there an easy way to get the screen name of an in_reply_to_status_id for > purposes of linking to the original tweet?
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote:
>> Before today, the value of the in_reply_to_status_id field was validated >> by two requirements,:
>> 1) It was set to a valid status_id >> 2) The valid status_id's author from #1 was @replied in the update (@reply >> here is the old definition where "@user" was at the beginning of the tweet).
>> If the value of in_reply_to_status_id did not meet these criteria, it was >> silently dropped.
>> We have relaxed requirement #2 to permit mentions, meaning that the user >> of the referenced tweet needs to be included somewhere in the update. Enjoy >> the new data!
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM, P Burrows <pburr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there an easy way to get the screen name of an in_reply_to_status_id >> for purposes of linking to the original tweet?
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote:
>>> Before today, the value of the in_reply_to_status_id field was validated >>> by two requirements,:
>>> 1) It was set to a valid status_id >>> 2) The valid status_id's author from #1 was @replied in the update >>> (@reply here is the old definition where "@user" was at the beginning of the >>> tweet).
>>> If the value of in_reply_to_status_id did not meet these criteria, it was >>> silently dropped.
>>> We have relaxed requirement #2 to permit mentions, meaning that the user >>> of the referenced tweet needs to be included somewhere in the update. Enjoy >>> the new data!
>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:40 PM, P Burrows <pburr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there an easy way to get the screen name of an in_reply_to_status_id >>> for purposes of linking to the original tweet?
>>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote:
>>>> Before today, the value of the in_reply_to_status_id field was validated >>>> by two requirements,:
>>>> 1) It was set to a valid status_id >>>> 2) The valid status_id's author from #1 was @replied in the update >>>> (@reply here is the old definition where "@user" was at the beginning of the >>>> tweet).
>>>> If the value of in_reply_to_status_id did not meet these criteria, it >>>> was silently dropped.
>>>> We have relaxed requirement #2 to permit mentions, meaning that the user >>>> of the referenced tweet needs to be included somewhere in the update. Enjoy >>>> the new data!
That is, if I click reply from the web, it starts the tweet with the
@mention at the very beginning. And if I move the @mention to
somewhere else in the tweet (to avoid the #fixreplies bug and let my
other followers see it), in_reply_to is silently dropped. From the
web interface, this makes it impossible to send a reply that your
followers can both see and follow to the conversation thread.
Is the web interface just behind the times? Or are we encouraged not
to use this newly-relaxed feature?
Thanks,
Nick
On Apr 30, 6:02 pm, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote:
> Before today, the value of the in_reply_to_status_id field was validated by
> two requirements,:
> 1) It was set to a valid status_id
> 2) The valid status_id's author from #1 was @replied in the update (@reply
> here is the old definition where "@user" was at the beginning of the tweet).
> If the value of in_reply_to_status_id did not meet these criteria, it was
> silently dropped.
> We have relaxed requirement #2 to permit mentions, meaning that the user of
> the referenced tweet needs to be included somewhere in the update. Enjoy the
> new data!
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Nick <npd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is excellent news! (Sorry, I'm a little behind.)
> However, documentation still asserts that the @mention must be at the > beginning of the tweet (maybe someone just needs to update this wiki > page: > http://apiwiki.twitter.com/Twitter-REST-API-Method%3A-statuses%C2%A0u... > ) > and the Twitter web interface still appears to follow this rule.
> That is, if I click reply from the web, it starts the tweet with the > @mention at the very beginning. And if I move the @mention to > somewhere else in the tweet (to avoid the #fixreplies bug and let my > other followers see it), in_reply_to is silently dropped. From the > web interface, this makes it impossible to send a reply that your > followers can both see and follow to the conversation thread.
> Is the web interface just behind the times? Or are we encouraged not > to use this newly-relaxed feature?
> Thanks, > Nick
> On Apr 30, 6:02 pm, Doug Williams <d...@twitter.com> wrote: > > Before today, the value of the in_reply_to_status_id field was validated > by > > two requirements,:
> > 1) It was set to a valid status_id > > 2) The valid status_id's author from #1 was @replied in the update > (@reply > > here is the old definition where "@user" was at the beginning of the > tweet).
> > If the value of in_reply_to_status_id did not meet these criteria, it was > > silently dropped.
> > We have relaxed requirement #2 to permit mentions, meaning that the user > of > > the referenced tweet needs to be included somewhere in the update. Enjoy > the > > new data!
|
