May 20, 2008 3:08 PM PDT

Announcing the Totally Unofficial Build a Better Twitter Contest

I have had it with this Twitter situation. I know it's a free service, and I know that a lot of you are frankly sick of hearing about it, but I cannot keep pretending that Twitter is the savior of the modern Internet, the message-bearing standard of Web 2.0, and the most important thing to happen to online communication since Gopher, when the site itself is only slightly more reliable than a late-model Saab. And I'm sorry, but being down all the time is not excused by the fact that people who think they're cool think Twitter is cool. Therefore, I would like to hereby officially announce the Totally Unofficial Build a Better Twitter Contest.

The premise: What other tool do you use in your life that's unusable almost as often as it's usable? And how is that acceptable? For months now, Twitter users have been asking what's going on with the service, and why it's down so often. Andrew Baron created an art gallery about it. By February, the headlines read Twitter Down; Sky is Blue. In more scientific reporting, Pingdom ranked Twitter dead last in social networking uptime from January through April. How bad was it? Twitter was down more than 37 hours in four months. And that's compared to social networks with many multiples more users than Twitter. The biggest of them all, MySpace, was down just one hour and five minutes in the same period. Now we've even got Is Twitter Down, that will let you know if you should even bother. Currently, no surprise, it's:

Is Twitter down?

That's embarrassing. And Twitter can't seem to fix the problem or even communicate why it's a problem at all. I don't want to bash Twitter, and I have enjoyed my time there when I wasn't beating my head against the wall with rage at its internal server errors. I know we all have a lot of community goodwill toward Biz and Ev, and I'm not trying to be nasty. It's just that I don't see a lot of clear signs from Twitter that it's taking the problem seriously or working on some real solutions. In a product based on communication, they're just not doing a great job of communicating. Hence, the contest. Someone, please, build a better Twitter.

Now, before I went shooting my mouth off about this, I consulted some actual software engineers (who wish to remain anonymous) about whether this could be done. One said, of course, "you can architect a better system." One acknowledged that, "knowing what I do about how it's set up, I think it'd be damn hard to keep that m******r up." However, he agreed that scaling Twitter in its current form is "non-trivial," because Ruby on Rails, as Twitter developer Alex Payne himself noted, is easy to develop with, but hasn't ever proven particularly scaleable. So, OK, Twitter underestimated scaleability. It wouldn't be the first time, right? But yet another of my experts noted that you can build a better Twitter. He said, "It requires memcached, or some other open source cache...it would take hours to do. Hours!"

So, I'm thinking someone out there has some hours to devote to this, and I am hoping you will do just that. As motivation, I pledge the following, totally unofficial and un-endorsed by CNET (or CBS) not-really-prizes prizes:

I will go there, for a test period of not more than 30 days, and I will beg all of my followers to join me for this test period (as of this writing, a nice round 6,700). My colleague, Tom Merritt, says he'll go there, too, and hopefully bring his followers along for the scalability test. I'll ask everyone else I know on Twitter to come along (I'm talking to you, Leo Laporte), and we'll see if it's really as hard as all that to build a Twitter that can stand up to the awesome pressure of being Twitter.

I will also throw in a motley collection of MP3-player accessories, a CNET windbreaker, some CNET stickers, and an autographed photo of the CNET personality of your choice, all not to exceed whatever value it is that triggers The Lawyers. Plus, if it works, you'll probably make bajillions of dollars. Or, at least, you would if there were any discernible business model for Twitter. You should probably try to think of that, too. Get to coding!

Originally posted at CNET TV
Recent posts from Crave
Amy Ray, 'Blame Is A Killer': Free MP3 of the Day
Yelle, 'Je Veux Te Voir': Free MP3 of the Day
Looking back, looking ahead: The week in laptops
Attention back-to-school shoppers: Find your laptop reviews here
Gear4 shrinks 'BlackBox' speaker to travel size
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 7 comments (Page 1 of 1)
by jasonnulph May 20, 2008 4:19 PM PDT
How about can you make me scale? The Hunt for a new CIO. I would say that is the best way to make twitter work.
Reply to this comment
by romeyinfc May 20, 2008 4:20 PM PDT
You've awesomely captured the frustration we Twitter users have with this service. The downtime doesn't bother me as much as their lackadaisical attitude towards it. Those pictures and stupid explanations insult the intelligence of their customers. Granted, Twitter is free, but if they need users in order to survive and the way they address downtime is only going to drive users away.
Reply to this comment
by jasonnulph May 20, 2008 4:20 PM PDT
How about can you make me scale? The Hunt for a new CIO. I would say that is the best way to make twitter work.
Reply to this comment
by phatemokid May 20, 2008 4:34 PM PDT
if you throw in a cnet mug i might take up your offer molly!
Reply to this comment
by sharktopus May 20, 2008 4:41 PM PDT
What is "done" in this scenario? How long do they have to remain up, and what allotments are there (if any) for downtime? How many users must they be able to simultaneously withstand while keeping to those uptime constraints? Love ya Molly, but without hard details on a "Victory" condition, this comes off as really specious and subjective exercise.
Reply to this comment
by n74jw May 21, 2008 6:58 AM PDT
Molly - Howabout building your own version of Twitter? Grab a book on *AMP and AJAX and hit it. Stop whining... Jeez!
Reply to this comment
by BBommarito May 28, 2008 6:06 AM PDT
Funny you should bring this up. I have the better Twitter. I've managed to hammer the hell out of it on just one machine, and it performs fairly well on just one box hosting everything (I only hammered it with 10,000 hits and posts because of bandwidth concerns). Here comes the problem: Let's say someone did write the better, more scalable, more bulletproof Twitter; who's going to know? Nobody has the funds to start up with the amount of servers you would need if you hit big. Not only that, you have to be at the ready to throw more hardware at it when the inital cluster gets saturated.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

I Crave

advertisement
Click Here.
Crave home

Crave

Switch background color:
A Blog from CNET

A Blog from CNET

Visit other CNET Networks sites: