Twitter Wrote:Twitter is over capacity.
Too many tweets! Please wait a moment and try again.
If you were to make such a popular site, wouldn't you make sure you had enough resources to keep it online all the time?
(06-08-2010 11:12 AM)RWenger Wrote: [ -> ]If you were to make such a popular site, wouldn't you make sure you had enough resources to keep it online all the time?
I'm sure thats easier said than done. The world of servers is incredibly complicated.
Yahoo does it. Google does it. As one of the largest websites in the world, they shouldn't go unavailable for 5 minutes at a time. >:(
Maybe I'm just annoyed that I couldn't use it as much as I wanted to this morning.

They all have trouble from one time to another.
Maybe one happened to be down during an unexpected demand surge. Who knows. It isn't as simple as it sounds.
rofl Yahoo! & Google have been around since the mid nineties. Only within the last three years has Twitter taken off in such popularity. As long as I don't have to pay for it, I could care less if Twitter was unavailable for days at a time. It's a wonderful & entertaining resource.
Well, maybe I'm addicted then.

See I don't think that keeping "social networking" sites available 27/7/365 is as important as with financial institutions. The rare exception might be for those that are severely addicted to them and will have a major with drawl without.

Like me.
Twitter has been down for well over an hour now. That wasn't just an isolated incident.
I find this sort of surprising. I hardly see you update on Twitter.
I do sometimes, but I don't update all the time. I've been updating it more frequently the last few days.
(06-09-2010 01:16 PM)RWenger Wrote: [ -> ]Twitter has been down for well over an hour now. That wasn't just an isolated incident.
![[Image: smack.gif]](http://worldsbestforum.1.forumer.com/html/emoticons/worldsbestforum/smack.gif)
Twit twit!

Is it evil to not care???
That's the impression I got.