Much agreed with Chris. I think the reason people use RT differently
(resend original message, add + comment or - comment) is because of
the fact that Twitter never standardized RT. Sometimes user changes
the text randomly for the shear reason the msg is over 140. I'm not
saying Twitter should change user behavior, no they are not. The new
API doesn't stop user sending customized RTs. But it does standardize
one thing, you can "vote up" for a tweet you like, and this is much
needed for data mining. for example previously tracking RTs per tweet
is easy, but tracking RTs per Twitter account is very hard and almost
impossible, this new implementation makes it possible. it turns RT
from unorganized data into organized and makes the data more useful
for data miners. It's not perfect, but it will evolve as time goes on.

On Aug 17, 3:56 am, Chris Babcock <cbabc...@asciiking.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
> janole <s...@mobileways.de> wrote:
> > If you just don't agree with a tweet and want to express it via a
> > retweet, how can you do so with the proposed API? Seems to be
> > impossible or am I missing something?
>
> The new retweet API does not circumvent any of the current methods of
> expression. The only thing that it does is provide a method for
> verbatim retweets that is appropriate on social, semantic and data
> storage levels. It doesn't appear to be designed to handled "value
> added" retweets. There's no reason that it should be. That mode of
> expression is already served well enough by emergent behavior
> surrounding the current API. Value added re-expression is an evolving
> part of the Twitter experience. Codifying the current meme for that
> expression would be counter-productive. This API is not attempting to
> do that. It's only a provision for a meaningful, trackable, acceptable
> "me too" message.
>
> So to discuss a post with which a user disagrees, the retweet mechanism
> would *not* be used. That is a value added expression that would be best
> served by linking or replying, depending on the scope of the
> disagreement.
>
> Chris

Reply via email to