The Next Web

Can We All Drop The RT @ For A While?

i was just thinkingI can safely assume that you are a Twitter user, most of our readers are. It matters little how many people who you follow, a large number of your incoming tweets are retweets. These tweets begin “RT @someonedull” and continue with a recycled tweet.

Everyone uses Twitter differently, some people preferring to follow a large number of people, and some like myself who do not. A retweeted tweet is supposed to be something of importance. That is, interesting enough to pass along.

I agree that there are tweets of such interest. However, (watching my @ influx on TweetDeck), I think now that the noise coming from @ tagged retweets is going to gag the use of Twitter somewhat.

If I post something, and it gets eight retweets and a comment, the comment often gets lost. In it being lost, I cannot find the person that wanted to discuss what is at hand.

Also, when a retweet is tagged with someone else’s name (the original tweeter, or perhaps the last two), the conversation is recycled backwards to the original poster. This centralizes the conversation, and cuts out people ‘down the tree.’

Now, of course I understand the desire to give credit where it is due. If I find something damned interesting, then you might want to say thanks for the find. But you already did. You chose to follow me, giving me that dabble of credence from your account (and thus you), so you have already said thanks.

I can hardly speak for anyone else, and I cannot at least for now change the way I retweet, (it would probably be taken an offensive from people who did not agree to what I have mind), however I can make a small request. When you want to retweet me, just take the tweet, and cut the ‘RT @alex’ out of it.

As long as you found it interesting, and want to share it, and follow me, I am content. After all, I just want that tweet to get more exposure, not myself. Take the conversation, and distribute it.

If I have yet to make my point clear, this is what I am trying to avoid continuing:

twitter fuck me

No offense Bjorn, you were just first in TweetDeck. That tweet has two important bits: the tweet and the link. I do not need the mention of who wrote it (@thenextweb); assuming that I follow each person that I do for a reason, I can expect them to not link-jack me. And after all, they can only do it once.

So I could take that tweet, and do this with it:

twitter wahoo

I think that we can all agree that the second tweet is simpler to read, easier to follow, and will save you time. You no longer have to dig through the chaff to see if you want to eat the wheat.

So, don’t retweet me in the traditional way, please. Just take what you find, and pass it along. If you tell me that I can do the same, I will. Hell, we could revolutionize this retweet concept.

Twitter however, wants retweets to look like this:

Can We All Drop The RT @ For A While?

If you have yet to get ‘official’ retweets, relax. You are missing little. What do you think? Drop th RT @, or is it really just too special?

Alex Wilhelm
Alex Wilhelm is a Chicago-based technology blogger and entrepreneur. He has worked for a number of technology companies in recent years, and has a particular interest in watching the social web monetize. Follow Alex on Twitter, or on Facebook. You can reach Alex via email at alex@thenextweb.com

  • I prefer this format:

    The Default Twitter Avatar...Remixed. http://tnw.to/4AcR (by @Zee):: RT @thenextweb /via @personifollow

    With the option to remove the text "by" and "/via" if space demands.

    I prefer vertical line "|" to "::", but with my phone its a hassle.
  • Alex,

    As social search continues it's rise to fame, the RT will become even more valuable than just an ego-stroker. RT's by other influential, contextual profiles may be a boon to one's cause...

    RE: Your condensed version of the RT above, I believe it may be a Twitter TOS violation to NOT provide credit when credit is due. (but don't quote me on that - its late and I'm not into fact checking now)

    Lastly, you're a smart dude who seems to have a day's worth of meaningful activities - I can't help but think your position on the whole RT issue is nothing more than antagonistic in nature...

    Either way - interesting discussion & one that I haven't seen until now.

    Keep the good stuff coming.
  • Hi Alex,
    funny to be an example at your blog even though you used my tweet to show how you would like tweets not to be. ;-)

    Anyway, must admit I have not followed the discussion in all comments but my opinion is:

    From one perspective I get your point. The information would be more easy for you to get. More straight to the core. Understandable in this context overloaded with information.

    On the other hand, I think you're wrong beacuse social media is about giving and geting. Give some and you'll get something back directly or indirect.

    "Sharing is caring" and that also counts for sharing the star from whom you got the info in the 1st place. That small tweet is an information piece that is unique at that time at that moment. I think it would be unfair to derive the honour to my list of who I follow.

    Best

    / Björn
    Ps. I tweet in Swedish in 99,9 % of the tweets. Do you understand Swedish? Ds
  • I agree that the "RT @ RT @ .. message..link" is terrible - I go with the "via @" at the end of the link. If there are so many people that I can't RT I will drop down to the original person. I do believe in giving credit though and will continue to do so.

    The new Twitter method IS terrible though - there are often times (daily) where the whole point of the RT is to comment on the content.

    For example, if someone were to post a link to a book burning event - my reason to RT would be to comment and let my friends know 1) that it's happening and 2) what I think about it. If all I could do was blindly RT and someone stops by to check out my stream and sees it, they have no reference from me so.. Why did I post that? Am I PRO-book burning? Am I encouraging them to attend and bring some Vonnegut for the fire?

    It's asinine and goes against the free exchange of info that made me love Twitter in the first place. As someone commented earlier, RTing was created by the community (wisdom of the crowd) and how(ever) people use it is best - Twitter should have thought it through more thoroughly before they made such a restrictive and unpopular change.
  • verybrave
    i read somewhere that the new retweet won't let u add a comment to the RT. is that true? i wish you could add a comment in another color so it would be clear that it's not part of the RT. anyway, i do agree with you 4 links but not 4 text (quotes).
  • i like seeing the RT @, it's one of the reasons why i like twitter, the viral nature of it means that a message can spread and be traced back to you and therefore might get you a few more followers who otherwise wouldn't know about you
  • Hi Alex, I think you're blowing this out of proportion which is why some of the early commenters (I admit I didn't scroll all the way down) are arguing with you.

    If I saw Bjorn's retweeting madness come through my stream and I wanted to share it on, I'd write this:

    ***
    Did you know you don't have to click reload to see new tweets? Details: http://bit.ly/noreload - by @thenextweb
  • I don't mind the retweet lingo. It's the hashtags that annoy me. They aren't really meant for humans to read anyway.

    I do however appreciate your point and will try and keep it in mind, but for now I'm hitting the retweet button at the top of your post.
  • Maggie
    I rely on RT to find good Twitterers; I edit out the subsequent senders if there is a chain of them forwarding if I also forward. I dump my own "followers" who only RT; why encourage them, or let others who check out my followers think I endorse them? I want some fresh content and lucid thought in those 140 characters, so RT some, and compose some. :)
  • As you can see from the comments, the real issue with "telling" or even "asking" people to change the way they use Twitter, the result is they won't.

    See http://elearningstuff.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/ten-things-people-say-about-using-twitter-but-really-you-shouldnt/ for more thoughts on what not to say about using Twitter.

    RT, @ and # all came about from the community and not from Twitter, there is a community consense.

    We can say how to use Twitter, but to be honest the Twitter community is unlikely to listen.
  • My post link I mentioned in my previous comment.

    http://is.gd/4Qg7q
  • Interesting thought - no question that RT>RT>RT makes a tough read visually.

    It also sometimes forces the Retweeter to spend time shrinking the original Tweet to fit in 140. Someone wrote, not too long ago - can't remember who -- that if you want to be Retweeted then "120 is the new 140" - you have to leave room.

    On the other side - I have found cool new people to follow from reading retweets with multiple attributions. I've acquired new followers as well.

    The challenge I think is the whole concept of 140. Citing your source has been considered "the right thing to do" since the earliest days of publishing. The form and challenge of the 140 world makes it a little tougher to do, but doesn't change the basic premise of not taking credit for something someone else said.
  • Since most people consider someone retweeting them a kind of reward, this is kind of complicated.

    See stages 23-25 in the 46 stages of Twitter:
    http://www.shanenickerson.com/nickerblog/2009/0...
  • Like you said, it makes @name replies very hard to respond to. Regardless of how everyone is afraid of change, I think this will be beneficial to the overall usability of the web service.

    I wouldn't be surprised if a feature comes along listing everyone associated with the retweeted message, providing they have a normalized database (otherwise it might be too much of a burden on resources).

    My main guess why people are freaking out over this is they want to get mentioned in the retweet. Something like that could fix it.
  • Without retweeting with the @user I might not have found this web site. Instead of looking through the hundreds of followers of the people I follow, I depend on them providing the source of RT so that I may check out that source directly. We don't all have 20,000 people following us. I find it a little disengenous that now you have built your following you want to change the rules.
  • Fair notes all around, and you are not the first person to holler at me for being a bit disengenuous.

    You will note that I never said "do this!" All I said, was that you have my permission to RT my content sans @'ing me.

    A modest proposal, if you will.
  • Regina Walton
    LOL...I believe in simply pruning RTs down to the original person who sent the tweet. Usually, what I'll do is go to that person's stream either on the web or in Seesmic and RT directly from them. It just makes it simpler.

    However, I'm terminally insecure on the net and I want to know who is RTing me. I actually go back and thank people for RTs and talk to them if they've inserted a comment in their RT.

    I don't think RTs are bad. I just think a lot of people are taking the clutter out.
  • Alex, I totally agree with you! I'm amazed sometimes at the clutter that people can produce in 140 characters.
  • +1 my good sir, you are the only one who does.
  • martijn
    I do and don't agree.. When I retweet, I'll only use the first poster of the tweet in the RT..

    I delete all the other retweeters..
  • Justin Clark
    I both agree and disagree. I hate the visual clutter that comes with the "RT @" but I like retweets as a way to find new people. So I use the "via @" at the end of my retweets. Also I only give credit to the original poster not the other people that retweeted it.
  • That is much less odius, provided there is only one via.
  • I agree with you for the most part, but sometimes its good to give credit where it's due.

    I think the simplest way of doing that is including their twitter name.This does, however, become a problem when you're looking through your @ replies.

    So I propose a new feature for Twitter apps (and the twitter website) - The ability to filter your tweets. Don't want retweets in your stream? Filter them out.
  • That would be epic, no please go code it.
  • Maggie
    You lost me with "irregardless." It may have crept into the dictionary with continual use, but it isn't a good word, it has always been considered a non-word. "Regardless" is what you meant. Sorry to be so pedantic.
  • I pulled it a while ago, refresh the post!
  • Nick Sharratt
    I sort of agree, but I'd go further: why retweet something if your not adding anything? If I read something of interest, it's usually the link that contains the details, so I'd keep the link but write my own take on it and sometimes end with a (link via @xxxx) if it merits crediting back to where I got it, which isn't necessarily the originator.

    I choose who to follow and if people blindly rt things then they are spamming my feed with things from others who I have sometimes chosen not to follow. However, if the info provided is interesting, I want to know the view of the person i'm following, not some stranger they happen to follow - but if the link/idea is good, it can also point me to new people I might then choose to follow, hence why I keep the link via bit if relevant.

    What I don't agree with though is tweeting something with no indication that it originates with someone else - often i'm tweeting a view counter to my own to comment on it and your proposed format would read as if the view/post/link were my view, so completely inapproriate.

    But hey, if it works for you, go for it - Twitter ettiquette is always evolving and your way might win out...I doubt it though.
  • Well, you retweet to pass along the information. There is no need to add, if the tweet is interesting. Assuming of course, most of your followers do not follow that person.

    Retweeting Mashable always is odd to me.

    Agreed on the evolution. I shall keep crusading.
  • Why is retweeting mashable odd to you?
  • We all follow Mash, why cluster-retweet?
  • Not everyone follows Mash, I certainly don't. But if one of my followers does and thinks it's a good link I'd like to not only know abut the link, but also who originally tweeted it.
  • Holden Page
    Sorry bro.

    But you are an outlier when it comes to getting retweeted. Many of us don't consider it noise and find it a valuable way to find new people to follow.

    Case in point. I would have never followed you if I didn't see a rt of one of your thoughts. If someone left that out I wouldn't be here talking to you on almost a daily basis.

    no one is going to stop this
  • Wow, fourth person to say that. I suppose that I follow people in very different ways.

    I might need to write a follow up to this post.
  • I've written about RT conventions here - http://fraser.typepad.com/socialtech/2009/07/re... My short response to this would be: RT's aren't just about not upsetting people by passing off their stuff as your own & not all RT's are post titles and links to posts.
    Cheers!
  • Right, I get that. I do understand that some tweets would be credited. My main point is, well, go look at the first tweet image. That says it nicely.
  • HOi
    This whole Project: Retweet thing is bound to fail.
    Some apps will integrate it, some wont. We've got a long and annoying time ahead of us dealing with both methods.

    Twitter did not think any of this through beforehand and that will be the inevitable downfall of Twitter in the long-run.
  • That doesn't even make sense.
  • I think you'd be one of few that didn't want credit for the creation of the original tweet.

    Not only is that credit a great way for your followers to discover new people they might like to follow, it's also a form of ego stroking that is intrinsic to the success of the whole twitter ecosystem.

    If people weren't given these little moments of recognition for their mostly banal musings would they even bother?

    That said I imagine your approach to twitter is much less about pushing out a certain persona in an attempt for recognition and worldwide domination, and more about building meaningful conversation and debate. In that, I'd imagine you are in the minority.

    Also, I don't think irregardless is actually a word, but I'm hoping it some sort of brilliant reference to Mean Girls.
  • Turns out it's not a word! I pulled it right after @dfoulks game me some hell on it.

    Good point on the ego stroking, but I think that the noise > ego masturbation.

    I agree on the conversation! This is why I want to decentralize it, and let more people talk amongst themselves, not push it all to one person.
  • Totally don't agree. The RT @ is also one of the best ways to discover interesting new tweeps.

    One of the possible reasons I don't agree with is that I don't face the same problem as you. When I tweet something at max it may get 4-5 RT. Now more than that. I have only about 600 followers and I follow even lesser number of folks. So, its not hard for me to keep track of @mentions.
  • Second person in a row saying that RT's are a good way to find people to follow. It's a fair point. I'll ruminate on it, and perhaps add that into the post.
  • I completely disagree, for a couple of reasons:

    1. RTs give credit where credit is due. Just taking the substance and passing it off as though you originated it is offensive. Maybe not so much when it's just a link that's being stolen, but imagine if it's some witty saying you wrote and then I pass it off as mine.

    2. RTs are a better replacement for FF. RTs are a good way to find new people. With a RT, I get a sample of someone's tweets. If I find it interesting, I might follow.

    I'm looking forward to Twitter's official RT scheme.
  • 1. I agree that there would be some occasions to credit a tweet. Especially an original turn of phrase. I suppose I am speaking out against the more mundane link repush.

    2. disagree. I find people by what they do in real life more than their ability to be retweeted, but that is just preference.
  • 1. Calling it a mundane link repush is surely implying that there is no value in discovering and sharing links. That's obviously not the case.

    2. Not just you, but one approach of many of course.

    There are a multitude of ways to use the twitter platform. The fact that twitter currently doesn't offer native RT functionality and users still do it, shows you how much value people believe it has.
  • 1. Not mundane in content, but in action. There is a difference.

    2. Agreed, but I bet I am in a large minority.

    Annnnnnnd Twitter does offer native RT capability. If you had read the whole post.... :)
blog comments powered by Disqus