<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The implicit trust in the new RT function on Twitter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hummingbird604.com/2009/11/19/the-implicit-trust-in-the-new-rt-function-on-twitter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hummingbird604.com/2009/11/19/the-implicit-trust-in-the-new-rt-function-on-twitter/</link>
	<description>The personal blog of a Vancouver-based educator in environmental issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:20:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raul</title>
		<link>http://hummingbird604.com/2009/11/19/the-implicit-trust-in-the-new-rt-function-on-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-6840</link>
		<dc:creator>Raul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hummingbird604.com/?p=5304#comment-6840</guid>
		<description>@ all but especially Dan

I see the value of what we gain with the new RT function, but I feel that I lose more than what I gain. That said, it saves us from the endless RT chains!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ all but especially Dan</p>
<p>I see the value of what we gain with the new RT function, but I feel that I lose more than what I gain. That said, it saves us from the endless RT chains!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Anderman</title>
		<link>http://hummingbird604.com/2009/11/19/the-implicit-trust-in-the-new-rt-function-on-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-6798</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Anderman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hummingbird604.com/?p=5304#comment-6798</guid>
		<description>I agree with Dan. Though at the end he said &quot;The ONLY thing we lose is attribution&quot;, when really the only thing we lose is annotation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Dan. Though at the end he said &#8220;The ONLY thing we lose is attribution&#8221;, when really the only thing we lose is annotation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Udey</title>
		<link>http://hummingbird604.com/2009/11/19/the-implicit-trust-in-the-new-rt-function-on-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-6797</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Udey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:25:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hummingbird604.com/?p=5304#comment-6797</guid>
		<description>The current method of retweeting is horribly broken for a great many reasons. I&#039;m willing to give up annotations for the improvements it offers. Some examples of things fixed in the new format:

1. People rewriting my tweets when they retweet: I&#039;m tired of seeing people turn a tweet like &#039;You are not the only person to feel you&#039;re alone&#039; to &#039;ur not the only person 2 feel ur alone&#039; just so they can add a commentary like &#039;so true!&#039; Suddenly, you&#039;re quoting me on something I didn&#039;t actually say (and I look like a retard to your followers).

2. 10 people retweeting the same thing, flooding my stream: This is irritating because once I&#039;ve seen it, I don&#039;t want to see it again. Especially not 5-10 times. Alyssa Milano likes toffee nut lattes, I get it, but I don&#039;t care that much. Let me see it once (at most), and let&#039;s move on.

3. Chained retweets: &#039;RT @somedude: RT @dudeguy: Man, I could use some nachos (via @dudeface) (@via awesomesauce)&#039;. So, who made the original tweet? And what order were they retweeted in? And why on earth do I care who else has retweeted it? This gets even worse when you run out of space in a tweet, and the original poster (maybe @dudeguy) gets *removed from the retweet* to make room. Suddenly attribution is completely lost, and the original poster doesn&#039;t get credit.

4. Tracking your retweets: Instead of watching your mentions, now you can just see which tweets were retweeted and by whom. This will also help Twitter search to find more relevant tweets, but I&#039;m more interested in who&#039;s retweeting, without having to do a search for what I said (to see people who&#039;ve removed my attribution).

5. Excessive retweeters: Some people are worth following, but retweet a ton of stuff I just don&#039;t care about. Sometimes it&#039;s worthless content, and sometimes it&#039;s content that&#039;s just irrelevant to me. Now I can choose to follow someone, but not hear their useless retweets.

The ONLY thing we lose is attribution (and as Randomgeek points out, you can still do old-style retweets; alternately just post a link to the tweet, which is a better option), but the things we gain are worth the change.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The current method of retweeting is horribly broken for a great many reasons. I&#8217;m willing to give up annotations for the improvements it offers. Some examples of things fixed in the new format:</p>
<p>1. People rewriting my tweets when they retweet: I&#8217;m tired of seeing people turn a tweet like &#8216;You are not the only person to feel you&#8217;re alone&#8217; to &#8216;ur not the only person 2 feel ur alone&#8217; just so they can add a commentary like &#8216;so true!&#8217; Suddenly, you&#8217;re quoting me on something I didn&#8217;t actually say (and I look like a retard to your followers).</p>
<p>2. 10 people retweeting the same thing, flooding my stream: This is irritating because once I&#8217;ve seen it, I don&#8217;t want to see it again. Especially not 5-10 times. Alyssa Milano likes toffee nut lattes, I get it, but I don&#8217;t care that much. Let me see it once (at most), and let&#8217;s move on.</p>
<p>3. Chained retweets: &#8216;RT @somedude: RT @dudeguy: Man, I could use some nachos (via @dudeface) (@via awesomesauce)&#8217;. So, who made the original tweet? And what order were they retweeted in? And why on earth do I care who else has retweeted it? This gets even worse when you run out of space in a tweet, and the original poster (maybe @dudeguy) gets *removed from the retweet* to make room. Suddenly attribution is completely lost, and the original poster doesn&#8217;t get credit.</p>
<p>4. Tracking your retweets: Instead of watching your mentions, now you can just see which tweets were retweeted and by whom. This will also help Twitter search to find more relevant tweets, but I&#8217;m more interested in who&#8217;s retweeting, without having to do a search for what I said (to see people who&#8217;ve removed my attribution).</p>
<p>5. Excessive retweeters: Some people are worth following, but retweet a ton of stuff I just don&#8217;t care about. Sometimes it&#8217;s worthless content, and sometimes it&#8217;s content that&#8217;s just irrelevant to me. Now I can choose to follow someone, but not hear their useless retweets.</p>
<p>The ONLY thing we lose is attribution (and as Randomgeek points out, you can still do old-style retweets; alternately just post a link to the tweet, which is a better option), but the things we gain are worth the change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randomgeek</title>
		<link>http://hummingbird604.com/2009/11/19/the-implicit-trust-in-the-new-rt-function-on-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-6795</link>
		<dc:creator>Randomgeek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hummingbird604.com/?p=5304#comment-6795</guid>
		<description>But can&#039;t you still just RT the old fashioned way if you want to annotate the tweet? Have they really &quot;broken&quot; that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But can&#8217;t you still just RT the old fashioned way if you want to annotate the tweet? Have they really &#8220;broken&#8221; that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nancy (aka money coach)</title>
		<link>http://hummingbird604.com/2009/11/19/the-implicit-trust-in-the-new-rt-function-on-twitter/comment-page-1/#comment-6794</link>
		<dc:creator>nancy (aka money coach)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hummingbird604.com/?p=5304#comment-6794</guid>
		<description>Agreed.   Plus, to me it escalates the Auto feel of twitter and de-escalates the human voice.  I first and foremost want to see the person who is doing the RT, who I am following, and only *then* do I want to know what they are saying be it their original tweet or their RT.  I want my first &quot;connection&quot; to be that kinda social/emotional one.  Otherwise, it&#039;s simply an info stream, not a &quot;Hey there&#039;s my pal Raul.  What&#039;s he saying today?&quot; stream.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agreed.   Plus, to me it escalates the Auto feel of twitter and de-escalates the human voice.  I first and foremost want to see the person who is doing the RT, who I am following, and only *then* do I want to know what they are saying be it their original tweet or their RT.  I want my first &#8220;connection&#8221; to be that kinda social/emotional one.  Otherwise, it&#8217;s simply an info stream, not a &#8220;Hey there&#8217;s my pal Raul.  What&#8217;s he saying today?&#8221; stream.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

