May 14th, 2009 - 3 Comments
More value lies in conversation than in repetition. @replies yes, RT's no.
There are times when logging on to Twitter all you see is a list of “RT @thisperson”, “RT @thatperson” and updates with “pls RT” appended to them. And of course the retweeting often means you are seeing the same update over and over from various people.
Retweeting can make Twitter a pretty noisy, and echoey place at times.
If everyone had the option of seeing @replies to people they did not follow, the need for retweeting would diminish somewhat. By removing the option you make ReTweeting a more vital part of discovering new people.
As long as you can see @replies to people you don’t follow, and people send @replies instead of retweeting you will be alerted to the original posters update, and you have gained some insight into the replier’s viewpoint on it.
A retweet on the other hand is a passive form of update – you can assume the ReTweeter agrees or likes it, but they are simply repeating what another person has said.
The problem is that retweets are now seen as currency, and I think it’s largely because most people were not seeing @replies to people they were not following, therefore if you wanted to be heard outside your circle people had to add text such as RT before the @name in order for people who were not following you to see the update.
If you wanted to get more followers, or get your content seen by more people, you had to get people to retweet you. But if everyone could see @replies to people they are not following they would become aware of you through the interesting conversations you had with the people they do follow.
Twitter say that only 3% of people chose to see @replies to people they did not know, but then they also admitted on the settings page that “The @ Replies setting can be confusing. Read the help article if you’re unsure” – perhaps this confusion was part of what led to the low take up of the feature.
If everyone had the clear option of seeing all @replies, the retweet could take it’s proper place as a useful tool for certain types of updates. Not the holy grail of updates some people seem to think it is.
At a large party you can drift around pausing to talk to people you know. If they are engaged in conversation with strangers, you can join in if you find it interesting. Now imagine a party where all your friends are constantly coming up to you saying “Did you hear what this guy said? He said…”
I know which party I’d rather be at.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, May 14th, 2009 at 8:00 pm and is filed under Social Media.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
3 Responses to “More value lies in conversation than in repetition. @replies yes, RT's no.”
Hey Joe, I’ve had all @replies as my setting since I started using Twitter, I don’t mind the extra noise, because at least it’s real conversation.
While using a third party tool to filter is certainly an option to reduce noise, I like to use the web interface for Twitter unless I’m on my ipod touch, and I imagine as Twitter becomes more and more mainstream most new users will be web interface as well.
Also, filtering the RT’s means you lose them, whereas guiding people to @replies over RT’s adds value without losing anything.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:35 pm by Frank Prendergast
I hear ya. RTs are also useful if you’re dipping in and out of Twiiter and might miss the original tweet. Also if certain people RT something then i know that is gonna be a good read, as opposed to some people who just RT everything they read.
“The problem is that retweets are now seen as currency, ” That’s certainly true especially with websites like retweetrank.com out there.
You could remove the RT noise by using Tweetdeck and putting on an RT filter. As for all @ replies I tried it for a while but found it very noisy. My 2 cents would be to keep an eye on your favourite Tweeters and add some of the people they talk to a lot and take it from there?
May 14th, 2009 at 8:21 pm by Joe Scanlon