.

←

→

Retweet, No FreeTweet

May 3rd, 2009 | Social Networking, Tools


Seesmic Twitter Desktop Client

Screenshot of Seesmic Twitter client

There’s a movement going on to encourage Twitter to add retweet functionality. It’s already garnered thousands of votes. Here’s the basic statement from the ‘official’ site, retweet.com.

Retweeting has become an essential part of the Twitter experience. Our goal is to start an online revolution. Help us show Twitter.com that thousands of us would like this feature. Make your voice count by signing the public petition!

Is built in retweeting really a revolution? Many Twitter clients already include retweeting. Sure, there’s no API call for it provided by Twitter, but it’s a very simple text formatting step. If you can code a Twitter client, coding retweets is the easy part.

I’ll contend though that retweets is not only not a needed base function in Twitter, but it’s already an overused tool. Here’s a perfect example of why.

well, duh! RT @kmallan RT @buymyshirt: Express your support for Medical #Marijuana #420 #cannabis http://bit.ly/1nWwM (Please RT)

WTH? Who originally tweeted this? Do I even care who originally shared it? Will anyone? Isn’t it all about the content, not the sharer?

Here’s another example:

RT: @00k: RT @unifex @rasmus I love Windows users – http://bugs.php.net/48139

This time not only is it a double retweet, the original receiver is included as well. I’m confident that information isn’t even relevant to any of us receiving this tweet. That’s especially likely after two retweets.

My counter proposition is the use of freetweeting. Freetweeting would be the uncredited re-tweeting of something you find on Twitter. Often times when I share a link, I’m not as interested in getting credit for sharing as I am that the link gets shared. Likewise with a quote. It’s not about me, it’s about the content. It might even specifically be about the person who created the content.

In order to implement this no special software or tools are required, simply copy and paste the tweet back into the post window. To further make this obvious to use freetweeting vs retweeting, the original poster could tag the post FT. This would indicate folks should just copy and go. That person could optionally include the FT or not.

Twitter culture would obviously break down into two groups, those that FT tag and those that won’t. My hope would be that in either case they just don’t use RT @tojosan for something I’ve shared as FT.

What do you think? Would you support this movement? Would you be willing to lose credit in exchange for clearer content? Easier to read tweets?

Are you with me?! Wanna start freetweet.com?

Similar Posts:

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • When I RT I generally only include (what looks like) the original Twitterer, especially if the tweet is a long one.
    And frankly, all you have to do to make a "FT" is highlight the offending handles and replace the characters with FT.
    Then people know it's not your tweet, and everything is good.
  • Thanks for the feedback and explaining your approach. Not enough folks honestly put any thought into re-tweeting something. I'd love folks to slow down a bit, verify their links, and share only the most interesting.
  • Love the FT idea, in and of itself - "set the tweets free!" is the rallying cry, I can hear it now. :-) Seriously, though, I wonder if this could fly. So many people get so hung up on 'credit' for these things. Which makes sense if it's a clever quip, but for just a link???

    As for RT, when possible (and when time permits) I try to track back to the original tweeter and just go from there - with possibly a 'via @so-and-so' credit at the backend, because one doesn't want to look like piggy-backing on someone else's sharp eye...

    oh, it's all so complicated! On the plus side, clicking backwards to find the original tweeter of a RT has resulted in finding a lot of very cool and smart folks to follow.
  • Yep, I definitely understand the locating great twitter folks from their Tweets. That's always a bonus, but often times that person isn't sharing something they created, found themselves or whatever, and doesn't need the credit. All of those RTs just clog up the content, to me make some folks look like spammers instead of contributors.

    For me, I'm tagging lots of my links as FT. Meaning you can optionally just copy/paste w/out the RT markings, or RT flag it as from me.
  • todd, I think both your suggestion and Retweeting can coexist peacefully. I agree that retweeting has been abused, but I do think the act of doing a Retweet by its original intention is still a good practice. Giving credit to the person who originally disseminated the information to your stream is a way for you to pass the credit on.

    With that being said, if I were to get a stream with numerous @'s in it I might use Ari's example or simply credit the original Tweeter for the post. I think there is still value in the retweet concept and agree that it is being abused and done inccorectly. However, instead of abandoning the concept, maybe a formalized feature could serve as a built in education for how to properly use the Retweet as intended.
  • Julia,
    You're right of course. No intention really to stop RT exactly. Just want to see it get used less and when it's not adding value.

    Thanks for your feedback.
  • I'm with you on the act, the eventual result and the reason to start it. Of course it will be confusing to begin with. Everything that you don't know is.

    The only caveat I can see, is the need to include the "FT". With the idea being to curve the semi-useful to unwanted extra info in tweets, it seems I would want to eliminate the FT as well. Although I can see this as an eventual step.

    I will back freetweet. It goes along the same lines as the "via" concept. My take on the idea of using "via", is that you take into account the fact that your followers are following you. They are not following the people you follow. And if they are, then they already know.

    I believe the idea of "FT" will help form the overall twitter stream into an open knowledge bucket vs a proprietary one. It will also take the niceties out of ReTweeting. When someone RT @... etc... they give credit to whomever made the statement before them, somehow making it okay to be less and less unoriginal. But if at some point, you suddenly realize that someone whom you thought had quite a bit to offer is really just quite up to date on what everyone else says, it will likely have a bigger impact. Following this down the line, people who bring into twitter will be known for having more to offer. Vs those who spread through twitter, who will have their own good place no doubt. But everything will become a bit more obvious and less passive.
  • Thanks! Love the thoughtfulness of your reply.

    Yeah, FT isn't about no RT, it's about another option.
  • Todd, I agree the RT is being abused in the worst way. While I don't have a good suggestion to correct the problem, I do like yours. A lot. Free Tweeting also goes a long way towards open dialog which is the whole point of Twitter in the first place.

    Cheers,
    Rick
  • Thanks Rick for chiming in.
    Give more, ask less.
  • Sounds too complicated.

    Example coming in my stream:

    @tojosan: RT @blah1 @blah2 RT @blah3 wwwwwwwww

    I would retweet that as:

    RT @blah3 wwwwwwwww (via @tojosan)

    However, I'm beginning to change my mind, considering a recent blog post by Dave Winer: http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/04/26/ret...
  • Thanks Ari for jumping in.
    To me RT is cumbersome, overused, and gets complicated.
    I'm just advocating that folks like you and I share tweets where we don't require anyone to give credit to repost.

    Dave's post is a good example.
blog comments powered by Disqus