If there’s one thing I hate, it’s stupid people. Actually, that’s not entirely accurate; I should say…I hate stupid ideas, wherever they may reside. If you’re currently generating or harboring stupid ideas, then I hate your stupid head. Yesterday was an especially annoying day for me, since approximately 98% of the World’s population discovered Twitter’s new RT feature and went into an emotional frenzy of stupid ideas. It was like Taz from Looney Tunes, minus the Tasmanian devil, plus ignorance and invalid logic. Right now, I’d like to take a moment to address all the anti-new-RT arguments I heard yesterday and explain why they’re stupid and you’re stupid for saying them.
Why Twitter’s New Retweet Feature DOESN’T Suck
I’ll start with the post by Lisa Barone, Why Twitter’s New Retweet Feature Sucks, since it was clearly the firecracker that woke the monkeys and encouraged them to riot. If there’s time, I’ll touch on a few other sources as well, but overall, I think Lisa’s post represents most of the common complaints I’ve heard.
Throughout this post, I’m speaking to YOU, as in “anyone who agrees with what Lisa’s post says.” I want to make it very clear that this is not a personal response directed at Lisa–despite the fact that I quote her writing throughout my post. So please, before all you emo LB fanboys and fangirls come galloping in to save the day, just understand that (1) I’m not talking to her, (2) I care about her way more than you do, and (3) I’d crush you anyway. In other words, don’t comment with something like “Lisa’s right! You’re wrong!” because for the purposes of this post (calling you stupid repeatedly), there is no Lisa. There’s only valid logic and invalid logic. Oh, and there’s me…I definitely welcome personal attacks on myself, should you feel the need to be immature like that.
The text quoted in red represents the arguments I was sent here to destroy.
It puts strangers in my stream
I can certainly understand why this would startle people, but the vast majority of complaints are nothing more than premature emotional reactions…
…like the time when Chrome was first released and everyone freaked out because they thought its EULA stated that Google was claiming ownership of any content published through Chrome…
…or that time when the U.S. government outlawed Heroin.
Once you think about it for yourself, you realize how silly “the mob” mentality is. Since when do we use Twitter to avoid meeting new people?
The two tweeps used as examples in the post are Lisa and Alysson, who follow 409 and 563 people, respectively. Do they really know this many people?
I’m sure they knew them all at some point, but chances are…there’s at least a handful of people who never tweet, and if they ever did…they’d be just as “stranger-like” as the people being new-retweeted. The only difference here is the new RT system makes you feel powerless over your own Twitter stream. I emphasize feel because you’re not actually powerless–it only feels that way. To explain what I mean, let’s look at the analogy from Lisa’s post:
Groggy, with a headache, you wake up the next morning feeling content and still [giggling] in your head about all the fun you had last night. Until you turn over. AND THERE’S A STRANGER IN YOUR BED! Someone you’ve NEVER SEEN before.
While this analogy adequately represents the emotional reaction shared by many yesterday, it doesn’t accurately represent the functionality of the new RT system (i.e. reality). It fails to incorporate the following details:
- The stranger that appears in your Twitter stream was retweeted by someone you follow.
- Beneath the stranger’s avatar is the name of the person you follow who retweeted the stranger.
- For each person you follow, you have the option to block their retweets from appearing in your stream.
Once you incorporate those details, the analogy goes something like this:
Groggy, with a headache, you wake up the next morning feeling content and still giggling in your head about all the fun you had last night. Then suddenly, a person you’ve never seen before walks into the room. You scream in terror and wet the bed. The stranger then says:
“Don’t be alarmed…I’m a friend of Matt Cutts. He gave me a key to your room and insisted that I introduce myself.”
Furious and soaked in urine, you grab the stranger and throw them out the window. Then you change the lock so that Matt Cutts can’t send any more strangers into your room.
You see? You have the power to throw people out of your space, and you have the power to make sure they never come back. The idea that your Twitter stream is a “sacred space” is absolutely ridiculous. If you came to Twitter in hopes of finding privacy and seclusion, you’re a goddamn moron.
How ’bout this gem:
According to one poll, only 6 percent of respondents like the change as is.
You mean…this poll of 292 people? If truth-stretching and data-skewing are permitted, then here are my counterarguments:
• According to one poll, the majority of users love it or think it has potential.
• According to one poll, only a minority of users prefer the old RT system.
• According to one poll, 0 percent of users said they hate the new RT system.
• The new ‘09 Twitter Retweet has more available horsepower than any other system in its class!
• Critics are calling the new retweet system “The best new retweet system of 2009!”
Here’s another argument I don’t understand:
Showing the unfamiliar avatar does not give me “more context” for the tweet. It gives me less because I don’t know this individual. If I were to see Rae’s avatar, I’d know to trust the content. I’d know it already passed the snuff test.
This is just nonsense and not because Rae has poor taste. If you don’t understand why it’s nonsense, then maybe the illustration below will clear things up. For simplicity, I’ll refer to the person I’m following as my friend, and the person I don’t know (i.e. the original source being retweeted) as a stranger. This is the same RT, as it would appear in my Twitter stream with the old retweet system vs. the new retweet system.
DIDN’T CHANGE:
1. name of my friend
2. name of a stranger
3. original tweet by stranger
4. time of retweet
LOSSES:
5. device my friend used to RT
6. picture of my friend
GAINS:
7. picture of a stranger
8. official RT icon
9. # of friends/strangers who retweeted this
10. device the stranger used for original tweet
11. time of original tweet
The only information you’ve lost is your friend’s avatar (which you’ve probably already seen a million times) and the device your friend used to retweet the stranger. Um…BFD?
On the other hand, look at what information we’ve gained from the new RT. We can see the source of the information being presented to us. Isn’t that more important than the warm, fuzzy feeling you get from seeing your friend’s avatar for the 600th time today? Keep in mind…your friend’s name still appears in the RT, so you still know that the original tweet passed the snuff test. In addition to that, you can now see the original source…which gives you a shit-ton of context. Ever heard of judging a book by its cover? Why would you want the results of your friend’s snuff test, when you could be snuffing this stranger yourself? Personally, I don’t trust the tweeps I follow to thoroughly stereotype the tweeps they follow.
What about differences of opinion between me and a friend? Do your friends all think exactly the same way you do? If I accidentally make friends with a Jehovah’s Witness…can I count on them to never send their friends to my doorstep?
Also worth mentioning: with the new RT system, you can see when the original tweet was made, and you can see the total number of people (not just your friends) who have retweeted something.
Moving right along now…
The new retweet feature doesn’t allow me to add my own comments. I’m stuck simply parroting back what was already said.
That’s irrelevant; that functionality is still available via the old RT system. I can complain that the new RT system doesn’t fetch me beers, but that’s also irrelevant. If you insist on adding “that’s cool” to your friend’s tweets before you send them out, then by all means…continue doing it. Nothing has been lost–lots of things have been gained. “Oh yeah…like what?” Like this:
The new features also assumes that RT’ing something always means that you agree with it. That it’s a Google-esque “vote” for that content. That’s not the case. Sometimes I’m retweeting things because I think the content is moronic and I want to add my own commentary and point it out. I don’t get that right anymore.
That’s incorrect. As I’ve said already…you still get that “right.” I could leave it at that and move on to the next counterargument…however, I’d like to kick this dead horse a little bit more.
STOP PROMOTING SHIT. If you think something is moronic…do me a favor and keep it to yourself. The only thing worse than reading moronic shit is reading moronic shit with someone else’s commentary. Imagine your friend came down with the flu, and the first thing they did was run over to you and pass it along. Now you both have the flu…and your friend starts complaining to you about their symptoms. Sound like fun? No, of course not. Remember: share good content, keep the moronic shit to yourself.
NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK. I’m just gonna say it: if the thought of retweeting something without fucking with it first really bothers you…there is a very high likelihood that you’re entire existence is pointless. The reason is simple: great minds create content that pushes the limits and expands the boundaries of human knowledge. Minds that are incapable of creating something new…just annotate the content of others.
As it turns out, the new RT system works well for both types of people. How? Because Twitter, Google, Bing, and all the apps and mashups that use Twitter data now have an automated method for separating the great from the pointless. If your followers are old-school retweeting you…they are effectively choosing to use your content in a way that doesn’t give you credit for it–not the old-school credit that is absolutely MEANINGLESS, but the new credit that is trackable and unmistakable. If your content isn’t being new-retweeted, only a handful of people will ever know it was yours. Think about it.
It takes away my visibility in my own network
[scratching my head]
Um…what? You don’t seriously mean to tell me that you only RT people to gain visibility in your followers’ streams, do you?
It says “Retweeted by Rhea and 1 other.” Where is the confusion coming from? It says “Retweeted by Rhea…” but you’re not 100% confident that this was retweeted by Rhea?
It does me no good to find good content and retweet it if I’m not getting credit for it. Sorry. Let’s not pretend that a good deal of retweeting is not motivated by ego. THIS IS THE INTERNET! That’s why people share content to begin with. To show everyone else how smart and savvy and clever we are. Twitter just took away my finder’s fee.
That’s possibly the most disturbing thing I’ve ever heard. Reading that makes me physically ill. YOU want credit for something SOMEONE ELSE created, and you’re upset because the new RT gives attribution to the actual creator? You honestly expect the developers at Twitter to create a system that gives stupid people credit for smart people’s content?
Are you fuckin’ kidding me?
It excludes people who want to play
How do you create a feature that a large segment of your users can’t even use?
So…you’re upset because you think you should be able to retweet private tweets that your friends don’t want published? Am I the only one who realizes how stupid that is?
Andrew Mueller thinks this was done to bring value to Bing and Google. I agree with him. He doesn’t like the ‘we know best’ tone Ev takes in his post to explain the decision. I agree with him. They took [away] the flexibility of retweeting without giving users anything of value to make up for it. Obviously this wasn’t done for us. It was done for whatever master plans Twitter has.
Last time I checked…I wasn’t in the business of organizing the World’s information. I’m not going to hate on Google and Bing just because they’re making money. Again, the new RT hasn’t taken away anything–it has only added new functionality to Twitter. Regarding these “master plans” you speak of…I don’t think it’s a secret that businesses try to grow, succeed, and make money. Twitter has been consistently improving their service, and they can proudly say they’ve created something. You know…as opposed to trying to get credit for other people’s creations.
Okay, it’s 4:00 am and I’ve been writing/venting for like 8 hours straight, so I’ll stop here. I’m gonna publish this beast as-is, and when I wake up tomorrow morning…I better not find any of you old-retweeting it. I don’t care what your device does or doesn’t support. Get your content-parasitic bitchass on the Web and click the new RT button. Or I’ll kill your dog.
P.S. I haven’t established a comment policy yet, but it goes something like this: write whatever you want; comments that contain links are held for moderating; author links become active for relevant sites and people I like; spammy, self-promoting comments are edited to make the author sound like a dumbass.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
But all of the whining is going to be what takes the new RT system from OK, to great. The whingers are doing us a huge service!
For me there is only 1 thing I need from the system, and that’s to block RT’s of people. I don’t want to block all of the retweets from person x, but they occasionally RT person y, whose tweets are like nails down a blackboard, I want to never ever see person Y again. Can you fix that for me Darren, huh? Can you take an axe to that person for me so I never have to see them RT’s again? well, do you love me that much? do you DO YOU?
Sorry, ahem, got a bit carried away there. For the record I would have liked the same thing from the old system too.
Can’t you just block the person you don’t want showing up in your stream? I haven’t tried it, but it sounds feasible. If your friend keeps retweeting a jackass, go to the jackass’s page and select the Block option from the gear icon. Theoretically, you would still see your friend’s RTs, but not the ones from their jackass friend.
I guess this means I love you?
Knew you loved me!
“The only information you’ve lost is your friend’s avatar (which you’ve probably already seen a million times)”
Well, there ya go. That’s the factor I’m upset about because it has a practical value for me, not an aesthetic one. That’s the one piece of information I want because it was a key part of my ability to quickly sort information visually. If they would just reverse the positions, I’d be happy. Show the friend’s avatar on the retweet and list the original author below the message. Same information, perfectly doable, but it helps me sort things visually because it’s always consistent, the avatar is always a friend.
Btw, I use the term “friend” loosely here as a convenience because not all friends are created equally, and sometimes it depends on my mood or the time I have at that moment, as to whether I skip over some people or look more closely. That’s an easy mental process skimming down the page if the avatars are consistently the people I follow. If it’s a mixture of avatars I follow and “strangers,” the flow of the quick skim is disrupted. (Because the value I give to each friend is conditional on my needs at the moment, a permanent sorting solution like categorizing A-list and B-list friends, etc., isn’t as practical as visual skimming.)
Really, all the complaints boil down to this. The changes disrupt the way the complainant sorts and processes information and that stresses them out. What’s so stupid about that? I think it’s arrogant to be dismissive of that. When there’s this big of a negative reaction, someone at Twitter didn’t do their homework. A key part of their success is people’s emotional attachment, not some practical software functionality. Forget the practical programming, do what makes people feel warm and fuzzy The value’s in the elements of socializing, not statistical tracking. To paraphrase the cliche: It’s the emotions, stupid.
Bottom line is configuration options would solve this. Just let people customize it, that’s the real answer, and I suppose this fact points to the utility of using a third-party interface that best suits you.
I’ve read through your comment several times, and I still can’t isolate anything worth arguing about. I don’t want to rule it out entirely, as I’ve had no fewer than 12 shots of Absolut Vanilia in the past 4 hours, but I gotta be honest…it doesn’t look good. It seems you’ve sidestepped everything I mentioned and attempted to start again fresh. I could systematically invalidate everything you’ve just said and write it all off as emotional horse feathers, but I’ve already played that card, and I hate being unoriginal.
So here…I’ll give you this one counter, and not in my own defense:
That’s incorrect. The “smart people” at Twitter most definitely did their homework, as should be obvious by the second paragraph of Ev’s blog post:
Is it arrogant of Ev to dismiss the majority’s concerns? Perhaps. But if the “smart people” weren’t willing to make decisions for the masses, then Twitter wouldn’t exist at all. 10 million idiots screaming in unison CAN be wrong…and this is one of those cases.
Now if you’ll excuse me…I’m off to my meeting with Mr. Shot, XIII and XIV.
The only reason I’m even bothering to comment here is because of Calvin. See, he’s the coolest fuckin dude on earth. Bar none.
Had I not seen Calvin pissin all over SEO, I would not have been instantly comfortable with your site. I would have come here less open-minded. And as soon as I saw the title of your article, after having already been less than open-minded, I would have blown it off and bailed.
But because Calvin visually set the stage in my emotional processing, I read the article.
See, what this is about is that you are stuck in a world where logic is king and all else sucks wind. If that really was how the world operated, love, compassion, empathy would be non-existent. So to would greed, self-righteous indignation, etc. etc. etc.
Since we are NOT living in a Vulcan world, but a Human one, you can either choose to accept this premise or not. However, if you fail to do so, and insist on a myopic “logic is all” perspective, you’re going to ultimately be more frustrated than anything else.
So – those of us who are emotion oriented, and those of us who are visual oriented, believe that the first few moments we’re exposed to something count for a lot. It does not mean that we’ll always pass complete judgment, but it most definitely sets the tone.
Like Calvin did for me. He gave me something to identify with – a sense of comfort and trust.
I’m not on Twitter to remain isolated in my already established circle. I am, however, only going to consider allowing new people into that circle if they come recommended by others most of the time.
Yeah yeah – all I have to do is hunt for the “who this came from” text. Well, uh, if I’m already jarred and put off, and I am needing to scan 50 tweets, it’s my nature (not necessarily yours, but most definitely MINE) that I’m going to give less attention to the stranger in my stream because of the extra step involved after already being jarred and thrown off.
You don’t have to agree with this concept, nor understand it. However you would be wise to take a moment to at least consider it. Because it is just as valid as your perspective.
And since (at the time of this comment) 11,733 people have now visited The Lisa’s post JUST from the bit.ly link, 1,776 visitors retweeted it, and an overwhelming majority of the comments have been in agreement with the post, it seems that you could not POSSIBLY justify your take that this is some sort of heat of the moment anomaly. Though you may continue to do so, which is completely illogical.
Just sayin
It was just pointed out to me that I should read one of your replies in the comments section, where you say
“But if the ’smart people’ weren’t willing to make decisions for the masses, then Twitter wouldn’t exist at all.”
If you actually think that all the people who disagree with Ev on this are stupid, then you have no grasp of the evolution of business. Or the reality that “smart people” like Ev, quite often make stupid decisions. Sometimes the motive is pure – “I thought they would want this, because I did”. Sometimes the motive is greed. “If I do this, I can monetize on this. Not every decision made by business owners who hit on something great is going to also be great.
If that were true, then IBM would still be the king of computing. Polaroid would still be the king of photography. And Microsoft would now be the king of the Internet.
BTW…your author links are now live. You earned it. :)
Alan,
Welcome to my
humbleesoteric blog. I enjoyed reading your comment, and I think overall it sounds reasonable…but, I want to point out a few things.I think a more accurate way of saying that would be: I’m a logical person stuck in a world where “true or false,” “right or wrong,” and “good or bad” are determined by the popular vote–and not by math, science, or logic. These statements sound similar, but the difference is…I know I’m the exception.
Where I come from, we call this a straw man. Instead of refuting my arguments directly, you have refuted the “logic is all” argument, which is not something I actually said nor believe in. I’m not suggesting that logic and emotion can’t both exist; I’m saying that emotion is not a substitution for logic.
Lisa made a similar argument in her post:
Unfortunately, this argument is not only baseless…it’s also impossible. By the time your brain has identified a foreign avatar, you’ve already given it more attention and mental processing than you would give to the familiar avatars. In fact, it is this extra processing that irks people about the new RT. When a foreign avatar shows up in your stream, it steals your attention away from your familiars, and it disrupts your routine visual scanning. The only way to “ignore” new retweets is by making a conscious decision to boycott the information they contain. While such a decision is possible and even understandable, it wouldn’t be logical. You’d end up spending more energy and getting nothing in return.
I took more than just a moment to consider it.
Before I respond to that, let me ask you: did you read Ev’s blog post? Did all of Lisa’s supporters read it? When it really comes down to it…what exactly is everyone disagreeing with? How can anyone argue against something they’ve never read?
A more accurate title would have been “Stupid People Are More Likely to Hate Twitter’s New Retweet,” but I opted for the shorter, more-inflammatory version. And really…I never offered much support for that argument. Instead, I picked apart the opposing side’s arguments. If I were to actually attempt to prove my “stupid people hate new RT” theory, I might approach it like this:
In any case, your statements about business are pretty far off topic, and I don’t really see where you were trying to go with that. However, even without knowing your conclusion…I can still invalidate your argument. In addition to another straw man, you have also included an example of cherry picking: your examples of IBM, Polaroid, and Microsoft are hand-selected cases that do not represent the majority.
I now face the challenge of drawing my comment to a close in a way that salvages (or attempts to salvage) any chance of you returning to my blog. I think I can do it. The secret is…I need to convince you that we’re BOTH right. Check it out…
The reason emotion-driven people find people like me really annoying is because they can’t escape logic. That is, no matter how strongly you feel about something…you can’t overcome truth. Something that is true cannot spontaneously become false, regardless of how anyone feels about it. But that doesn’t mean emotion should be exiled from the decision-making process entirely.
If Lisa had written a post that only said things like “I don’t like it” or “I am uncomfortable with strange avatars showing up in my Twitter stream,” then I would have NOTHING to argue about. Lisa’s entitled to her opinion, and if she says she hates Twitter’s new retweet, then I can’t say otherwise. But when she takes her opinion and tries to validate it with invalid logic…then suddenly I have something to attack. And not just any attack…but an attack using principles of logic that can’t be denied any more than the laws of physics can.
Here’s an example.
Argument A:
Argument B:
Both of these arguments convey the same basic message: “I don’t like seeing these foreign avatars.” The difference is, Argument A is undeniably wrong (which I illustrated in my post). No matter how many people dislike seeing foreign avatars, the fact that new retweets provide more context will never change; |x| + 5 – 2 will never result in a negative value.
What this all boils down to is this…
If a population’s top priority is to please the greatest number of people, then you’re right. If a population’s top priority is to advance civilization, then I’m right. And since the best choice of “top priority” is a matter of opinion, then we can both be right, depending on who you ask.
Fair enough?
Honestly, I really enjoyed this post. o.o It was refreshing to read, my headache is gone tyty!
With a comment that generic, I’m assuming you’re a spam bot. However, I’m not going to delete it…since it gives readers the impression that I write refreshing content that has magical healing properties.
Hahaha. Sorry, I originally found this site coincidentally and I can’t offer any commentary on your post as I don’t use twitter. I did, however, find this post shortly after making the mistake of reading something on the deviantart website. At any rate I didn’t realize I needed an epic proclamation for just saying I enjoyed the post. But at least I reaped the benefits of the magical healing properties.
Whoah…you’re real? Hell yeah.
I’m confused. If you don’t use Twitter, then what would make this post enjoyable? And furthermore, how would you even find this site?
Judging by your vocabulary, your use of punctuation, and the fact that you were on deviantart…I’d guess you enjoyed the anti-stupid-people theme of this post, and you found my site by searching Google for something like…I don’t know, maybe “stupid people give me a headache” or something like that. But I’ve incorrectly stereotyped you once already, so I’m not 100% on this.
Kudos to you for calling people’s attention away from the fact that you are calling them stupid by claiming to not be calling Lisa stupid…when, in fact, you are clearly doing both. It’s like distracting someone with a shiny object as you kick him in the crotch and steal his wallet. What a wonderful exercise in the art of manipulation. :)
An interesting perspective, but wholly untrue. What is logical to you, is clearly illogical to those with an opposing opinion. While there may be merit to each argument, that merit doesn’t render the logic behind either argument either entirely valid or entirely invalid.
A reaction based on emotion isn’t necessarily cause to dismiss it out of hand. Social media is driven by emotion. Well written blog posts, like this one, are designed to elicit an emotional reaction. Your reaction to Lisa’s post and to people’s distaste for Twitter’s new retweet feature is clearly an emotional reaction. That doesn’t render your arguments completely without merit – even though I was not swayed by your logic, nor convinced to alter my opinion after being presented with it.
If I can’t count on them to know how I would react or respect me enough not to send their “friends” to my doorstep, it means only one thing: they don’t know me at all and we’re not actually friends. If I invite someone to a dinner party and they send a total stranger in their place, I’ll be annoyed and likely never invite that person to a dinner party again.
Should I have to spend additional time doing this on an individual basis? No. I shouldn’t. Just like I shouldn’t have to use .@username to circumvent the infinite widsom Twitter showed by deciding which replies our followers will see. For now, I don’t have to worry about it. Thus far third party applications, like TweetDeck, don’t recognize the new retweets and I don’t see them anyway. That said, those using the new retweet are, perhaps unknowingly, reducing their reach considerably.
Outside the 140 character confines of Twitter, the claim of this sweeping generality is that once a supposed great mind creates content, no one else has anything constructive to contribute in an ongoing conversation. If that were the case, conversation of any kind, on any subject, would be completely unnecessary. We’d all be resigned to the role of mindless, hapless drones reciting verbatim the words and ideas of the chosen few among us anointed as “great minds”.
That sounds like loads of fun and there’s nothing more appealing than getting the exact same message over and over, with no variation in voice, tone or perspective. What we think, on an individual basis, is the very driving force behind Twitter. Otherwise we wouldn’t follow anyone and no one would follow us.
I don’t like being bullied. And in this scenario, that’s exactly what Twitter is doing. I may be able to choose to ignore the new retweet and go on using the same procedure we’ve always used, but as you pointed out in your post, doing so doesn’t come without an opportunity cost. Twitter, like Google, has taken the, “Well, you don’t have to do it our way, but if you don’t…” stance. Twitter has taken ownership of something its users created and are now penalizing those who developed the concept to begin with.
This is perhaps the most disconcerting fact of all. You’re absolutely right. Ev and Twitter did their homework. They knew the new retweet would cause controversy and simply didn’t care. It’s not the first time. And it won’t be the last.
Like this summer’s controversy over removing an individual’s control over the replies that appear within their Twitterstream, the powers that be made a unilateral decision that their version of the retweet would be superior to what already exists. Unrelenting arrogance demanded that they bastardize a concept which developed organically within their community of users.
I read Ev’s post days before Lisa’s post was published. My reaction to his reasoning behind the new retweet is no different today than it was the day I read it. And I’d have called his reasoning into question and made the same arguments in reaction to his post if his blog permitted comments. The fact that it doesn’t says a lot about his willingness to consider dissenting points of view – or lack thereof.
He was attempting to appease people he knew would be pissed by showing a feigned willingness to give them a glimpse into the decision making process. The fact is he could have summed it up in a just a few words, “Thanks for the idea. But we’re smarter than you and we’re going to make it work the way we think it should, whether you agree or not.”
The bottom line is this: whether you detest the new retweet feature or believe it is the best thing since sliced bread comes down to personal preference. The difference between Lisa’s post and yours is that she expressed an opinion about the new retweet feature, while you chose to label those who dislike it as “stupid”, “ignorant” or “illogical”. That’s a great way to get people’s panties in a knot, but it also makes some people dismiss your arguments – not all of which are without merit – entirely based on an initial emotional reaction to being called stupid.
At any rate, I have to give some love to anyone who mentions me by name in a post…even if I disagree with him. ;)
If Twitter looked towards MySpace or FaceBook for guidance towards keeping things simple, it’d be a cesspool of junk games and stupid polls that steal all of your information to be sold to advertisers in exchange for knowing an insipid bit of useless information.
The RT function needs some improvement and will probably be altered accordingly, for now I don’t bother using it, much preferring the more easily accessed Repost function in Tweetie.
I loved this post – learned a lot, love the humor – well done.
Thank you Alysson for your wise and unagitated comment, loved reading it. Personally I don’t like functions that need to be explained at length, because besides studying functions of computer applications I have a job, a family, a dog, … Secondly I guess that the improved ability to measure ‘influence’ makes twitter more attractive to advertising budgets, because advertisers want to know how effectively their bucks are spent. By now I would not worry because I don’t have to follow professional advertisers – but will it stay that way? Last not least I use Tweetie so I hardly ever see the website version. As long as they do not adapt the concept – and why should they with the majority being annoyed? – I don’t even bother to try the new RT. Yes, maybe that’s acting stupid … I can live with that ;)
Talking about emotional, have you reread your artcile above?
I am still not convinced. I don’t need the gains, just keep it simple. The first thing about a retweet I want to know is who retweeted it. I don’t want to look around the screen to find some tiny nano font displaying my friends twitter username.
You sir are my hero and I have much lust for you and I want to touch your heinie.
You, sir, are ambiguously gay.
Okay, so I like the new re-tweet function. Because it puts strangers in my twitter stream. No, they don’t know me, but now I might be able to get to know them. Fact is, if I am following you and you re-tweet something of value I might end up following someone else that’s sharing value. Keep re-tweeting crap and I’m going to unfollow. It’s really that simple.
Talking of simple. Everyone trying to keep it simple go back to DOS or Unix! ;)