Home > The Art (or Science?) of the Retweet
«
»

The Art (or Science?) of the Retweet

02 Aug 2009

2 Aug, 2009  Twitter, social media


Retweets on Twitter serve many purposes, such as sharing information or  flattery. And while there is a bit of an “art” to them, I think there is also a “science”, or a consistent way to do an RT.  I have been noticing lately that some people are not forming retweets (RT) correctly, and therefore, are almost misquoting people. I do believe in a way that “there are no rules on Twitter”, but this is one area that I do think there are certain conventions for.

What I’m seeing is that people add their own comments after the “RT”, when they should be before the RT (or after, if you use a separator such as <— or parentheses)).  The point is to have a clear separation between what the original person said and what the retweeter is saying.Art

Another misuse I’ve seen is that they change the content of what comes after the “RT” so much that it’s not really what was said in the original tweet.  Anything that comes after the RT, should be exactly what the original person said, with minor modifications to shorten the tweet to fit into 140 characters.

Here are a couple of examples of bad RT’s I’ve seen lately:

Example #1:

The original tweet from me (@BostonMarketer): Did you get the job?” My latest post is up on the WSJ blog…http://bit.ly/4t55s

The retweet: RT @bostonmarketer: “Did you get the job?” Rachel Levy, MBA’98, on looking for work w/o getting too emotionally invested—http://tr.im/rkKE

What’s wrong with this tweet? Well, it makes it look like I wrote everything that came after the colon.  It’s not that it’s a bad thing to say, it’s just that it’s not what I said.

The corrected retweet: Rachel Levy, MBA’98, on looking for work w/o getting too emotionally invested RT @bostonmarketer: “Did you get the job?” My latest post is up on the WSJ blog…http://bit.ly/4t55s (this tweet is WAY too long, but you get the idea!)

ScienceExample #2:

The original tweet from me (@BostonMarketer): Tweetdeck mulit-account management has changed my life

The retweet: RT @bostonmarketer: Tweetdeck mulit-account management has changed my life love it!!!

What’s wrong with this tweet? Again, it looks like I said everything after the RT, including “love it!!!”

The corrected retweet: Love it!!! RT @bostonmarketer Tweetdeck mulit-account management has changed my life.

OR

RT @bostonmarketer Tweetdeck mulit-account management has changed my life. <— Love it!!!

OR

RT @bostonmarketer Tweetdeck mulit-account management has changed my life. (Love it!!!)

The one area that I do find confusing is the use of “via” instead of “RT”.  “Via” is the way that some Twitter applications do a retweet.  For example, if you RT my tweet above from Tweetie, it would look like: “Tweetdeck mulit-account management has changed my life (via @BostonMarketer)”  I find this slightly confusing because you start reading the tweet and think it is actually coming from the retweeter.  The other confusing part is that some people use “via” on purpose and distinguish it from “RT”, meaning that they just found out about it from this person, and  they’re not necessarily quoting them.  My preference is that all the apps get on the same page and just use RT, instead of via, so we’re all speaking the same language!

What do you think?  Have you seen misuses of the RT lately?  Do you point it out, or leave it be because “there are no rules on Twitter”?

(Photo credit: Art, Science)

Share This:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • Ping.fm
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • PDF
  • Tumblr
  • Print
  • email
  • Plankmatsnmore
    Thanks, the concept of RT is to share and credit a thought, perspective - sometimes the RT doesn't need an explanation but other times it does.
    If you write before the RT does the rest of message become hyperlinked into a short URL as it does when you FB cross post. If so I'd prefer to do that to keep the original message in tact.

    Anyway thanks for SM ethic tips...
  • If you write before the RT, no the rest doesn't become a hyperlink... you
    just do: "Comment RT @name: original tweet"
  • HI! While I generally agree with your comments, I have noticed that the everyday or average Twitterer RTs a noted post on the front-end, then follow it with some type of separator such as
    "-", or "...", or "<-" (which is what I did to your Tweet). So I would dare say that MOST Twitterers do Retweet first and then write in their comment on the backend - assuming there is any room for it.

    One can only do so much with 140 characters - I'm a writer, I know...:)

    Yet the practice of RTing seems to be all over the place and while I'm certain there was a intended decorum in its usage, one must unfortunately bow to the popular vernacular. A good example of this is our beloved English language. There is a proper way to speak it and use it, then unfortunately there is its everyday usage which is certainly unorthodox and can be quite vulgar.

    I do thank you for your comments and guidance. BTW, this is a very good post on your blog. You should consider posting it on Twitter often. Who knows you could turn this thing around...=D

    Cheers!
  • Thanks for your comment. I'd be interested to poll users about this... but,
    I think I see the vast majority of people commenting at the beginning, in
    order to help with this issue. For me, the key is to ensure that the
    separation is obvious. A "-" or "..." can be easily perceived as part of
    the original tweet.
  • Rachel, great post (I know, late to the party AGAIN!)

    There are a couple of problems with RT etiquette: it's an organic construct and not of Twitter's making, size limitations when @'s and via's are factored in, and (as Linda points out) the loose-y goose-y rules around attribution.

    I always try to use the pipe symbol ('|') to separate my comments and that's still not enough especially when the original tweet is near the 140 limit. Barring that, I try to link to the full tweet with my comments added along -- I know this just adds to the confusion and completely occludes the original tweet, and that's a bad thing, but I'm trying to balance out original intended tweet (sans edits) with my commentary. I know, this begets a whole raft of other issues like what's more important the original tweet or my commentary? Clearly the original tweet.

    It would be real nice if:

    1. Twitter handles were "auto-magically" not counted against the 140-char limit during a re-tweet (yeah, you can see the list of re-tweeters but it wouldn't count as part of the tweet)

    OR

    2. Original tweet wasn't at all counted against your reply (yep, this would definitely complicate matters on the twitter back-end)

    Also, the "RT" v. "via" debate adds to the notion that there aren't any standards and it's a free-for-all after all, and this doesn't help. I would make the case for option #1 (above).

    Again, great post!
  • Just wanted to throw my two cents in on how to comment after a RT. I very heavily favor using a pipe | symbol to mark the end of the RT and start my tweet.

    Orginial

    @bostonmarketer I am awesome.

    RT @bostonmarketer I am awesome. | Wow, me too. What are the odds?

    Feel it's a perfect way to divide the two sections.
  • Thanks for the comment Adam. I agree, separation is needed, and the pipe is
    a clear way to do it!
  • marciamarcia
    I appreciate you spelling out the correct way to RT. When using RT I try to be as clear about what I am re-tweeting as possible and don't change the word that were clearly chosen by someone else. I also use via frequently to note I learned about the information via @cooltweeter but that my tweet is expressing what I think about the link, which I suspect my followers will find newsworthy. Had I thought the tweet as-is would convey that, I'd have used RT. Recently I've seen more use of h/t (hat tip) and I've used it a few times when I wanted to convey I was extra appreciate of the tweet, but I've had enough people ask me directly what h/t means I've realized that's confusing too. Bottom line: while there may not be clearly defined rules, I hope we can all aim for common courtesy, not putting words in other peoples mouths, yet finding ways to acknowledge we appreciate what we learn from those along the way.
  • You make some good points, Rachel. I favor the <-- to show what I'm commenting on. Haven't decided whether I like to comment before or after the original tweet, so I do what feels right on a per tweet basis. Agree that the "via" thing is VERY confusing. Thanks to searchmaven for that tip on Tweetie.

    Where it gets really messy is with the multiple RT's.
    Example: RT@god RT@katjaib RT@bostonmarketer.

    Plus, to save char. counts, I like to just use one RT at the end, and list everyone. So I'll do: RT@god @bostonmarketer The last person listed is the original tweeter. But then we run the risk of dropping the person who deserves the most credit the more it gets retweeted.
    Suggestions for better ways to handle?
  • Yea, that's a tough one. I once read that if you have to cut people out, cut out the secondary tweeters, not the original one, because they deserve credit. I agree with that, so I try to stick with that. For sure no hard and fast rules on that though!
  • Something else I have started to wonder about with retweets is whether a RT attribution is always necessary when retweeting a link/blog/etc. For instance, in tweeting about this post, rather than say RT @bostonmarketer... , I could have tweeted a longer introduction and then the link with attribution, such as "Great article on accurate use of retweets from @bostonmarketer (link here). I add not always necessary to have RT." Obviously, if I'm using the RT to quote what someone else has said, then the RT is necessary for proper attribution. But in cases of links, why not just post the link and any commentary rather than RT the string of six people it took to land in front of my eyes? I think that adds value to twitter in hearing what other people think of the link being shared rather than just the same link over and over again in my feed.
  • Linda,

    I like how you have emphasized "the link with attribution" in your comment.

    I have noticed more and more Twitter users tweeting a blog post's title with an shortened URL and not (a) attributing the blogger's Twitter handle, or (b) blog's title. In fact, some have used a different URL shortner than provided in the blog's embedded "Re-Tweet" button (which of course messes up the blogger's analytics).

    When I come across such a tweet it appears that the Twitter user composed the post and I would not know any different until I clicked on the link, only to discover it was originally composed by someone else. A new follower who happened to be the head of social media agency was a recent practitioner. His tweet stream was loaded in this fashion. It appeared he was tweeting on the backs of others' work. I tweeted him about his practice and it resulted in silence. My response was simple..."block".
  • _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My latest blog post: "The Art (or Science?) of the Retweet"
    http://budurl.com/htlf

    Rachel E. Levy
    Mobile: (617) 733-2182
    Email: rachel@rachel-levy.com
    Website: www.rachel-levy.com
    Facebook: http://facebook.com/RLconsulting
    LinkedIn: http://link.rachel-levy.com
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/bostonmarketer
  • I agree completely. I see a lot like that, and even some without the
    name (get picked up by backtweets). Thx for the comment!
  • I was actually talking about this with someone else yesterday. And I especially agree on the via. I think it should be used ONLY as a way to summarize something someone said. Like, "Just found out Google Wave is due to be released in April! (via @bostonmarketer) It would be great if this would become one of the unwritten rules of Twitter to make quoting and summarizing people more clearly because no one likes to be misquoted for better or worse. (disclaimer: Not true fact from bostonmarketer!!)
  • I definetely agree on via, but I think there are a lot who don't. (oh,
    and I can't believe you misquoted me! :-))
  • searchmaven
    Just a point of clarification...Tweetie provides two options for repost syntax: "RT@username: message" and "message (via @username)." It's under preferences, Advanced.
  • Thank you so much for telling me that... I had NO idea that
    "RT-gurgitationability" meant RT or via... what an odd thing to call it!
  • Thanks for letting me know that! I didn't know that "RT-gurgitationability" meant toggle between Via and RT!. Now I do. Thanks!
  • Using the * symbol as a push pin and posting a comment immediately after it may alleviate confusion on who said what.

    Example:
    From @alevit
    New WSJ column on small victories: http://online.wsj.com/artic...
    Her link was cut off and not easily retweetable.

    Below is my retweet.
    RT: @alevit New WSJ column on small victories: http://is.gd/1Z8KC *Small Steps, Big Leaps #Careers

    You can see that I used the is.gd link service to create a short URL. After the original message I used * and added some context for people who see my tweet in their stream. Perhaps the context added will interest people into reading the post that Alexandra wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
blog comments powered by Disqus