status/update in_reply_to_user_id not being acknowledged

[Matthew]

Hello,

Been working on a project that will allow users to reply to tweets. I
am having difficulty in getting the 'in_reply_to_message_id' to be
acknowledged. I have been using the latest version of Abraham's
TwitterOAuth library, also confirmed the problem through apigee.

Example request (over POST):
http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/update.json?in_reply_to_status_id=26673308442&status=looks
like its not working for apigee either

I can confirm the in_reply_to_status_id message is a message I posted
earlier.
http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/26673308442.json


I get a response back from twitter with field populated except with
"in_reply_to_status_id" : null.
Is there currently a glitch in the twitterapi, or am I using this
function improperly?


Thanks in advance!

[Matthew]

Opps I meant to mark the title as 'in_reply_to_status_id'.

On Oct 7, 1:37 pm, Matthew <matt.c.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Been working on a project that will allow users to reply to tweets. I
> am having difficulty in getting the 'in_reply_to_message_id' to be
> acknowledged. I have been using the latest version of Abraham's
> TwitterOAuth library, also confirmed the problem through apigee.
>

> Example request (over POST):http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/update.json?in_reply_to_status_id=2...

> like its not working for apigee either
>
> I can confirm the in_reply_to_status_id message is a message I posted

> earlier.http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/26673308442.json

[Taylor Singletary]

With as often as this comes up, it's obvious that we aren't communicating this clearly and the historical aspect of this isn't obvious:

An @reply requires that it begins with the @username of the user being replied to. The in_reply_to_status_id field is not enough to associate the tweets as a reply -- the username must also be present.

Also: When using a POST method, don't include your fields/parameters on the query string. Instead, put them in the POST body. You may find someday that passing such parameters on the query string just stops working.

Taylor

--
Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc
API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi
Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list
Change your membership to this group: http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk

[Matthew]

Thanks Taylor, I appreciate it. I didnt see mention of that in the
http://developer.twitter.com/doc/post/statuses/update documentation.

-Matt

On Oct 7, 1:42 pm, Taylor Singletary <taylorsinglet...@twitter.com>
wrote:

> With as often as this comes up, it's obvious that we aren't communicating
> this clearly and the historical aspect of this isn't obvious:
>
> An @reply requires that it begins with the @username of the user being
> replied to. The in_reply_to_status_id field is not enough to associate the
> tweets as a reply -- the username must also be present.
>
> Also: When using a POST method, don't include your fields/parameters on the
> query string. Instead, put them in the POST body. You may find someday that
> passing such parameters on the query string just stops working.
>
> Taylor
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Matthew <matt.c.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > Been working on a project that will allow users to reply to tweets. I
> > am having difficulty in getting the 'in_reply_to_message_id' to be
> > acknowledged. I have been using the latest version of Abraham's
> > TwitterOAuth library, also confirmed the problem through apigee.
>
> > Example request (over POST):
>

> >http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/update.json?in_reply_to_status_id=2...

[Orian Marx (@orian)]

When did this change to actually require starting the @reply with the
@username? HootSuite has long supported sending tweets in reply to
others without leading with the @username. Does this no longer work?

On Oct 7, 3:42 pm, Taylor Singletary <taylorsinglet...@twitter.com>
wrote:

> With as often as this comes up, it's obvious that we aren't communicating
> this clearly and the historical aspect of this isn't obvious:
>
> An @reply requires that it begins with the @username of the user being
> replied to. The in_reply_to_status_id field is not enough to associate the
> tweets as a reply -- the username must also be present.
>
> Also: When using a POST method, don't include your fields/parameters on the
> query string. Instead, put them in the POST body. You may find someday that
> passing such parameters on the query string just stops working.
>
> Taylor
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Matthew <matt.c.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > Been working on a project that will allow users to reply to tweets. I
> > am having difficulty in getting the 'in_reply_to_message_id' to be
> > acknowledged. I have been using the latest version of Abraham's
> > TwitterOAuth library, also confirmed the problem through apigee.
>
> > Example request (over POST):
>

> >http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/update.json?in_reply_to_status_id=2...

[Taylor Singletary]

I've never known this to work, but I easily could be wrong. API won't do anything to stop you from doing this -- but it won't be considered an @reply. HootSuite very well could do some server-side association of the post since it is cognizant of the intent during creation -- but that seems far-fetched.

Taylor

[Orian Marx (@orian)]

It seems like a proper @reply does not require a leading @username.
Take this recent reply to me for example: http://twitter.com/#!/mikedizon/statuses/27265789132
(note the reply was created via twitter.com too).

On Oct 8, 12:07 pm, Taylor Singletary <taylorsinglet...@twitter.com>

[Matt Harris]

Looking into this it shows this is a presentation issue on twitter.com
as these are mentions. To confirm this I checked the in_reply_to
fields in the API response. In these messages the in_reply_to fields
are null. This can also be seen when not in #newtwitter -
http://twitter.com/mikedizon does not report the tweet as a reply to
you.

I've let the webteam know about this heading causing confusion.

---
@themattharris
Developer Advocate, Twitter
http://twitter.com/themattharris

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Orian Marx (@orian)

[Abraham Williams]

The in_reply_to fields are set: http://api.twitter.com/1/statuses/show/27265789132.json

I can confirm that the screen_name can be contained anywhere in the text for replies. It has been this way for as long as i can remember except in the #vintagetwitter web interface.

Here is another example where I replied to myself at the very end of the text.

https://twitter.com/#!/abraham/status/27035921296

Abraham
-------------
Abraham Williams | Hacker Advocate | http://abrah.am

Update: http://blog.abrah.am/2010/10/organizing-my-life.html
@abraham | http://projects.abrah.am | http://blog.abrah.am
This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private.

[@epc]

When in_reply_to_status_id was originally added you could "reply" to a
tweet without including the @username in the tweet, and twitter would
accept that (and thread that) as a proper reply. On the one hand this
freed up a few additional characters for the reply, but also lead to
confusion since people were seeing replies which didn't include their
screen_name.

This behavior was later changed to require that the screen_name which
authored the tweet being replied to be mentioned in the reply (this
was around the time that replies became "mentions"). A tweet posted
with in_reply_to_status_id but without the related screen_name would
get posted, but the in_reply_to_status_id field would not get set.
--
-ed costello

[Orian Marx (@orian)]

The in_reply_to info is definitely set. It's showing up properly in
TweetDeck. However things are right now, I don't think they should be
touched.

On Oct 13, 3:28 pm, Matt Harris <thematthar...@twitter.com> wrote:
> Looking into this it shows this is a presentation issue on twitter.com
> as these are mentions. To confirm this I checked the in_reply_to
> fields in the API response. In these messages the in_reply_to fields

> are null. This can also be seen when not in #newtwitter -http://twitter.com/mikedizondoes not report the tweet as a reply to

> you.
>
> I've let the webteam know about this heading causing confusion.
>
> ---
> @themattharris

> Developer Advocate, Twitterhttp://twitter.com/themattharris